Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time, and passed.

MIDLAND METRO (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Tinplate

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will state the latest figures for the output of tinplate in Wales and Great Britain, respectively.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): The average monthly output of tinplate in the first five months of 1990 was 72,000 tonnes. All British production of tinplate is based in Wales.

Mr. Wigley: The Minister will be aware of the importance to Wales of the tinplate industry, which in its heyday employed some 7,000 people. In view of the loss of jobs at Velindre, will he give an assurance that there is now certainty for the future of that industry? As £120 million worth of tinplate is to be imported into Britain this year, will the Minister examine the matter to see how we can maximise our own output and the jobs that depend on it?

Mr. Leigh: As the hon. Gentleman may know, there has been a very gradual decline in the production of tinplate due to competition from aluminium. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's other question, now that British Steel is privatised, profitable and successful, I do not think that it is down to a Department of Trade and Industry Minister to comment in detail on the company's commercial operations and I have no intention of doing so.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that British Steel is already one of the most positive examples of the benefits of privatisation? In 1979–80 it lost £1·7 billion, but in the past year it made a profit of £700 million. That example is being followed with interest throughout the world and one can only hope that it will be followed with interest and understanding by Opposition Members.

Mr. Leigh: I fear that my hon. Friend will receive no reassurance from Opposition Members, who still seem not to accept the benefits that have accrued to British Steel as a result of privatisation. The whole world knows that we have one of the most successful and profitable steel companies in the world and we at the DTI intend to leave it well alone.

Dr. Reid: Would the Minister like to make that claim to the 370 employees at the Ravenscraig hot strip mill who lost their jobs last week, the 400 workers at Ravenscraig who will lose their jobs at the end of the month, the 1,200 people at the Clydesdale tube works who face the sack within the next three months or the 3,500 and the rest at Ravenscraig and the 2,000 connected with them who are liable to lose their jobs? How can he possibly regard a company that throws away the most productive steel plant in Britain and, indeed, in Europe as a shining example to the rest of British industry?

Mr. Leigh: As regards Ravenscraig, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that certain undertakings were given to the Government by British Steel, and the Secretary of State for Scotland is pursuing that matter. As regards the hon. Gentleman's general points about British Steel, we return as always to the original fact that in 1979 the industry was making a loss of £1 billion and now it is making a profit of £600 million.

Capital Adequacy

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline the progress being made by his Department in negotiating the capital adequacy revised directive with our EC counterparts in the Trade and Industry Council.

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): In June 1990 the Commission tabled a proposal on capital adequacy. More recently, it tabled a position paper on equity risk and interest rate risk. We are negotiating on those proposals together. I am consulting widely with the industry concerned and we wish to see the principle established that capital should be related to the risks being run.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and wish him well in the work on the revised draft text. Is he now confident that that will give a level playing field, a single-market basis and a fair opportunity for competition by British financial intermediaries?

Mr. Redwood: No, I am not yet fully satisfied on that point. A number of issues relating to independent financial advisers still need to be discussed and brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I am pleased that the Commission is now a partner and is listening carefully to our argument that IFAs should be distinguished by the amount of risk being run, that different levels of capital should apply to them and that in some cases exemptions should apply to them. I should like to see rather more exemptions than are currently proposed, but getting agreement on that will obviously be difficult as it involves a qualified majority vote.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister tell his Common Market counterparts that in the jungle of the City of London it would be a good idea to learn some lessons from the


swindle at Harrods, the Blue Arrow fiasco and all the rest of the City frauds'? They will certainly not achieve a level playing field like that.

Mr. Redwood: It is typical of the Opposition always to try to run down the City of London and this country's financial services. It is high time that the Opposition got behind those services and realised that they create hundreds of thousands of jobs and do a very good job for this country in Europe.

Mr. Michael Irvine: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed capital adequacy requirements as they stand, could all too easily restrict choice, reduce competition and thus damage the interests of the financial consumers whom they are intended to assist?

Mr. Redwood: I have already said that the United Kingdom Government wish to see capital related directly to risk. If we succeed in that, my hon. Friend's fears will be confounded. I accept his intention and that we still need to make more progress over the definition of categories for various types of independent financial adviser. One of my main objectives is to try to avoid independent financial advisers being squeezed by European directives.

Northern Development Company

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to meet the board of the Northern Development Company to discuss the company's business plan for 1991–92.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I have no present plans to meet the board of the Northern Development Company. Its plans and grant application for its inward investment activities for 1991–92 are currently being given careful consideration, along with those of the other four regional development organisations. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs will be announcing the level of grant for all the regional development organisations in early March.

Mr. Cousins: The Secretary of State will know that the Northern Development Company was created by people in the north to promote inward investment. Given the spirit of his speech yesterday, does he now regard it as a fully fledged regional development agency and, if so, will he give it the resources to promote inward investment from the south into the north so that, as the puff of credit which floated to the south sinks, people can move to the north where opportunity is greater and life is better?

Mr. Lilley: The Northern Development Company is doing an excellent job. It has a good record of attracting companies into the north-east—about 31,000 jobs have been created by inward investment in the north-east and the northern region—and it will receive the largest grant of any of the regional development organisations.

Mr. Trotter: As the Northern Development Company has all-party support, is a bright example of success in the north-east in terms of its economic promotion and has contributed significantly to the resilience of our region, will my right hon. Friend therefore maximise support for its future and for that success?

Mr. Lilley: I shall certainly do so. As I have said, the company will receive the largest grant of all the regional development organisations. It has an excellent record. In addition, English Estates is planning 600,000 sq ft of extra factory space in the region.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Secretary of State recognise that there has never been a more important time than right now to reverse the Government's damaging industrial strategy in the northern region? Why do the Government not reopen the door that they so firmly locked in 1979 when Labour left office and restore to our region the levels of industrial assistance that were available at that time, which brought tens of thousands of jobs to the north of England?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should ask his own Front Bench. As I understand it, his right hon. and hon. Friends have no intention of restoring regional development grants. If they have, they had better tell us where they intend to get the money from.

Tax Burden

Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the tax burden, including employers' social security contributions and payroll taxes, on British, French and west German companies, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product.

Mr. Lilley: In 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, direct taxes on corporations and employers' payroll social security contributions were 8·9 per cent. of gross national product in the United Kingdom; 10·5 per cent. in west Germany and 17·2 per cent. in France.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those gratifying figures go some way to explaining why business investment in the United Kingdom since 1979 has been higher than in either France or Germany? Does he further agree that we must keep those burdens down and reduce them further if we are to have continuing long-term investment in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The lower burden on taxation on industry in Britain goes a long way to explaining why we have three times as much inward investment as France and six times as much as Germany. I cannot pre-empt the Budget judgments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I agree that it is important to keep the burden of tax low. We remember all too well that the Labour party voted against a reduction in the corporation tax rate.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Secretary of State agree that many industrialists complain justifiably about the amount of bureaucracy involved in collecting the taxes that they pay? Does he believe that we should make progress towards a unified tax and benefits system? Does he also agree that the reintroduction of enhanced capital allowances would enable industry to invest in itself in a more useful way?

Mr. Lilley: The Government considered in the 1988 Green Paper the unification of taxation and social security benefits and concluded that it simply was not feasible


because the two were on different time scales and had different purposes. It would make the bureaucracy far worse if we unified taxation and social security benefits.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the most tedious tax burdens on very small firms is the absurdly low level at which they become responsible for value added tax? Will he continue, perhaps in conjuction with his colleagues and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to make representations to the European Community to raise the level?

Mr. Lilley: I agree with my hon. Friend. He makes a good point. We have consistently argued with the EC that we should be allowed to raise the level further. We have set the level as high as possible under Community law, but there is a proposal in the works that would raise the level higher. That proposal has been made basically on our initiative, but it is grinding exceeding slow.

Furniture and Furnishings

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has made to the European Commission to ensure that legislation concerning the flammability of furniture and furnishings meets the highest safety standards pertaining for British consumers.

Mr. Leigh: The Commission has held three consultative meetings with member states about its proposals for a directive on the fire behaviour of upholstered furniture. In these discussions we have made it clear to the Commission that the United Kingdom could not support any proposals that would reduce the level of fire safety provided in the United Kingdom by the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988. This view was confirmed in a position paper sent to the Commission in September 1990 and reinforced in a bilateral meeting with the Commission last November.

Mr. McCartney: I thank the Minister for that reply. The whole House will welcome the Government's opposition to attempts by our European partners to reduce fire safety standards to a level that will put us back 20 years. The House should understand that the Commission's proposals affect furnishings not only at home but in public places. Is the Minister prepared to meet the officers of the all-party home safety committee to discuss with them the need to inform the public and others that we are not prepared to see fire safety standards traded off by the Commission for the purposes of 1992? Will he welcome the reduction for the first time in 20 years in deaths from fires at home in Britain, which has been brought about by the new legislation?

Mr. Leigh: I pay tribute to the knowledge that the hon. Gentleman brings to these matters. We are aware of his deep interest in them. I fully agree with what he says. Of course, I shall meet any delegation. I take these matters seriously, not least because I am a father of young children. So long as I am the Minister responsible for consumer affairs, I shall fight any proposals that in any way weaken our regulations—which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are some of the strongest in Europe.
Only today we issued a leaflet entitled "Making furniture safer" on the Department of Trade and Industry's lead in Europe in making furniture as safe as possible.

Mrs. Currie: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the number of deaths in domestic fires, particularly among women and children, has dropped sharply in Britain since we introduced much stricter rules about the foams and fire retardant materials to be used in furniture? Does my hon. Friend accept that this is serious and that it is preposterous for the European Commissioner to suggest that there are no satisfactory tests which could be introduced? Why does not my hon. Friend simply show him what we do in Britain and how well it works?

Mr. Leigh: That is precisely what we are doing in discussion with the European Commission. To set this matter in context, I should say that the proposals are at an early stage and the Commisison has not come back with any proposals to the Council. However, we are not satisfied with the way in which the proposals are drafted and we intend to toughen them up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) has said, we have good, tough regulations and the number of deaths is coming down. We must keep up the good work.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Why does the Government leaflet published today not alert the public to the threat to British safety standards? Why has the Minister failed to support and defend British firms which have invested £20 million in developing safer foam products? Will he give an assurance that his Department will fight the disastrous draft directive and ensure that dangerous foam products which do not meet the highest British standards are stopped at Dover?

Mr. Leigh: That is an absurd contribution, unlike those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South and the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). Tens of thousands of copies of the leaflet have been issued and it relates to regulations on the statute book now. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening, but I have already explained that the proposals from the Commission are at a draft stage and that we intend to resist them. To start talking about regulations that might or might not be made in the future and putting them in a leaflet going out to ordinary members of the public would be absolutely absurd.

Monopolies and Mergers Commission

Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is planning to enlarge the scope of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lilley: I have no plans to enlarge the scope of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Holt: Given the outstanding record of the DTI in the past few years—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Holt: Given the DTI's outstanding record in the past few years on the Barlow Clowes affair, the Iraqi supergun affair and on the jewel in the crown, the MMC, and its fiasco over the brewers, its complete and utter


inexplicable decision on British Satellite Broadcasting and Sky and, latterly, its refusal to allow ICI to dispose of its fertiliser interest to Kemira, can my right hon. Friend say when he will start to listen less to the civil servants surrounding him, who know nothing, and take a little more interest in what is told to him by his friends on the Back Benches who represent the relevant areas?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is as vigorous a defender of the interests of his constituents as he is of my Department.I appreciate his concern about the MMC report and the possible effects on Cleveland Potash Limited in his constituency about which we have spoken. There is no certainty that, as a result of that report, ICI will close its plant and I very much hope that it will not. There is no certainty that ICI will be unable to find another buyer, should it decide to seek one, as I hope that it will. There is no certainty that if the Kemira sale had gone through, it would have safeguarded indefinitely the potash plant in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend should remember that there is almost no precedent, at least since 1982, for a Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to turn down and fail to implement the recommendations of an MMC report of that kind.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister must be extremely worried about the mergers taking place, because they are just an excuse for asset stripping. I highlight the problem in Glasgow concerning the tobacco industry, which has created wealth in that city for many centuries. Imperial was taken over by Hanson. There were good industrial relations, a hard-working work force and profits in the industry, but the factory is to be closed down and the work taken to Bristol. The factory will then be sold off to the highest bidder and Hanson even has the cheek to intimate that he is looking for a grant from the Scottish Development Agency to do his dirty work.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) was talking about a merger that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission did not allow to take place. It is right to have an organisation such as the MCC which uses competition as the principal criterion on which to decide whether a merger should or should not go ahead.

Mr. Norris: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is determined to draw even more closely to the attention of the MMC the real danger of nationalisation by the back door of companies in Britain when they are subject to the attentions of overseas companies that are either nationalised or semi-nationalised? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tough stand that he has taken so far and urge him to ensure that the MMC always has that principle firmly in mind.

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I shall consider each case on its merits and take into account the degree of state ownership when considering whether to refer a proposed merger to the MMC. In the past few years, about a quarter of takeovers in this country have been by foreign, state-owned companies. Since I announced my decision, I believe that the rate has become lower.

Mr. Beggs: If necessary, will the Secretary of State enlarge the MMC's brief to enable it to look into the unfairly low price paid for electricity put on the national

grid by those producing from small hydroelectric turbines? Many more economy sites could be developed throughout the United Kingdom if those who generate from hydroelectric turbines were awarded a fair price for the electricity that they generate.

Mr. Lilley: I will certaintly draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for Northern Ireland.

Financial Advisers

Mr. Andy Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to assist independent financial advisers in the EC.

Mr. Redwood: My Department and I argue strongly for independent financial advisers in Europe, particularly in respect of the investment services directive and the capital adequacy directive. We should like them to take advantage of the passports in that directive, but only if the capital requirements are sensible.

Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government believe that independent financial advisers have a role to play in the single European market? Will he confirm that the Government are doing everything possible to ensure that such advisers can play such a role?

Mr. Redwood: Yes, I hope that they will have a role to play. I should like it if they would have a passport, through the investment services directive, to carry out cross-border business, but that would depend on getting the right answer about capital, which is important to them.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the advisers have a role in explaining away the neglect by the present Government of the British film industry in Europe? Will they explain why the Government have reneged on their fairly miserable commitment to give £5 million to the European co-production fund? If that is to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Europe, will the Minister accept that the advisers will have an almighty job to explain away the once-thriving British film industry?

Mr. Redwood: That has nothing to do with the main question and is symptomatic of Opposition Members' attitude to the important issue of IFAs. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) is not present today. She has been alleging in the press that FIMBRA—the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation—is in danger of becoming bankrupt. I hope that she will withdraw that allegation. Another way in which we are helping IFAs is to show the true financial position of FIMBRA, which told me yesterday that it now has net cash in the bank and a budget plan for next year which will mean that its costs will not be greater than its revenues if all goes according to plan. I hope that Opposition Members will concentrate on IFAs, the matter in hand, which have no role to play in the film industry.

Acquisitions and Mergers

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of acquisitions and mergers by United Kingdom companies of United Kingdom companies in each year from 1984 to 1989.

Mr. Lilley: The value of acquisitions and mergers by United Kingdom industrial and commercial companies within the United Kingdom rose steadily from £5 billion to £27 billion between 1984 and 1989, I will publish the annual figures in the Official Report.

Mr. Cran: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm his confidence in the takeover panel and takeover code, and acknowledge that there is concern in the City and elsewhere about the effect on the panel of the 13th draft EC directive, or whatever it is called, which substitutes a more legalistic approach for the highly pragmatic approach that we take in the United Kingdom? Will he confirm that he will make every endeavour to ensure that that EC beast is not foisted upon us?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is much concern in the United Kingdom about this. Our voluntary takeover panel works very well. The bulk of takeover activity occurs in this country, so we have a right to a major say in any legislation that will bear on the United Kingdom and we shall vigorously uphold British interests in discussions in Brussels. It is, however, a matter for majority voting, so we cannot be absolutely sure that we will get our way; but we have quite a good track record of persuading our partners of the rightness of our cause.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is needed in mergers is consistency, speed of determination and lack of duplication by Government agencies? Therefore, when the mergers directive is in place, will he prevent the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Director General of Fair Trading from making any attempts at empire building?

Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree. The greatest possible simplicity, speed and certainty are important in these mergers. I shall take my hon. Friend's point into account.

Following is the information:



£ million

1984
5,474


1985
7,090


1986
15,370


1987
16,539


1988
22,836


1989
27,253

Recession

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effects of the recession on industry in the north-west.

Mr. Leigh: The defeat of inflation is the only sure way to achieve sustainable economic growth. Business in the north-west is well placed to weather the current downturn and to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the 1990s.

Mr. Hoyle: That was a very complacent reply. In British Rail Engineering Ltd. and Rolls-Royce alone, 1,000 jobs will be lost; 30 per cent. of manufacturing industry has been destroyed by the Government since they came to office; one in three manufacturing jobs in the north-west has been lost; Lewis's, the retail giant, is going into bankruptcy; bankruptcies are running at record

levels; and investment is falling. Even though the Minister may have been a car-boot salesman in the past, will he visit the north-west, get out of his limousine and meet real people, who will explain the position there to him? Does he realise that they will tell him that it is time this fag-end Government of weary Willies and tired Tims resigned?

Mr. Leigh: In that long litany the hon. Gentleman wholly failed, as one might expect, to give us any good news about his constituency. Perhaps I can help the good people of Warrington by announcing that recently, Digital Equipment Company, one of the largest computer manufacturers in the world, revealed plans for a £20 million investment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. It is a pity that he does not speak up more for Warrington, where unemployment is below the national average. But it is not nearly as low as in Clitheroe, in the Ribble Valley constituency, where it is 2·8 per cent.

Mr. Dover: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the official figures for employment in the north-west show an increase of 60,000 in the past 18 months?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right. We all know that there has been an increase in employment in the north-west, although we should see it in the context of the fact that more people are in work nationwide than ever before—and in all sectors of the economy. We should also recognise, as I said in my original answer, that the only way to get rid of unemployment in the long run and to ensure that British industry is competitive is to lick inflation. That is the purpose of our policies.

Mr. Henderson: As 25,000 jobs have been lost in recent months in the textile industry, many of them in the north-west, and now that the GATT talks have been resumed and there is an understanding in Europe that no conclusion will be reached before July this year, by when the multi-fibre arrangement will have run out, will the Minister assure the House today that the Government will, without delay, discuss the multi-fibre arrangement at the Council of Ministers and seek its renewal after July, at least for an interim period until the GATT talks are concluded?

Mr. Leigh: The arrangements will continue to the end of the year and there will be a transitional arrangement. It is particularly in the interests of industry, including industry in the north-west, that we obtain a settlement in the GATT negotiations and we intend to do so. If a settlement is achieved the considerable benefit to consumers has been calculated at about £1 billion.

Business Investment

Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on business investment.

Mr. Redwood: Business investment grew by 8 per cent. in 1989 and by 43 per cent. over the three years to 1989. Since 1980 business investment in the United Kingdom has grown faster than in any of our major industrial competitors except Japan.

Mr. Wardle: If industry is to resume the record levels of investment achieved between 1987 and the middle of last year, is not it essential that the Government first defeat inflation?

Mr. Redwood: I agree that reducing inflation is very important to business confidence and investment. The House may like to remember that investment was running at well over £55 billion in 1989, compared with a level under the Labour Administration that never got anywhere near £40 billion in real terms.

Mr. Haynes: Where was the Minister yesterday when my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) made a marvellous speech at the Dispatch Box about trade and industry? It is a shocking state of affairs when we have a Minister standing at that Dispatch Box talking about how much the Government have invested in British industry when those Conservative organisations, the CBI and the chambers of commerce, do not agree with what he is saying. Will the Minister get up and tell us what he is going to do about it?

Mr. Redwood: I was present for the first part of the speech by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). Then I went off to make a speech to a group of business men and hear for myself what is happening in British business.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) asked what we are going to do about it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs made it clear: having a sound economic policy is vital to investment confidence.

Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult for a British company to compete against overseas companies in this country when it comes to investment? There are not enough offsets for the investor, who is tempted to leave his money on deposit rather than risk it. We need a fresh impetus from the Treasury to make sure that British investors will invest in this country.

Mr. Redwood: In the early 1980s corporation tax was cut substantially and investment allowances were withdrawn. The result was a surge in investment, taking it to levels much higher than any achieved in the 1970s and early 1980s. I will, however, make sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer hears of my hon. Friend's ideas because he will regard them as important in the run-up to the Budget, although he will want to make his own decisions on that and other matters that come before him.

Ms. Abbott: Do not current interest rate levels make it very difficult for business to invest? Should not Trade and Industry Ministers be pressing their colleagues in the Treasury to call for a realignment in the exchange rate mechanism?

Mr. Redwood: Interest rates and the level of the currency are matters for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and have been exhaustively debated in the House.

Credit

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to ensure that customers are better informed about credit deals.

Mr. Leigh: The Government's plans on this matter are described in the consultative document "Proposals for New Legislation on Credit Marketing", which was published in December.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I acknowledge that the Government cannot play nanny, nor can they always protect people from their own folly, but there are measures that we can and should take. Will the Minister comment on some of the techniques of inertia and cold selling which offer people all sorts of things on credit, using simple forms on which one must tick a little box if one does not want them? These are techniques which many simple people do not understand and which cause them to get themselves into unnecessary difficulties.

Mr. Leigh: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although we cannot be a nanny state, I think that a successful market is a well-informed one. Inertia selling is a matter of fine judgment because many of those boxes are designed, according to the people who provide credit services, to protect the consumer through insurance schemes; but I decided to prohibit inertia selling because it is wrong that someone should be required to undertake a contract without having positively requested so to do.

Financial Services (Regulation)

Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to alter the regulatory structure for the United Kingdom financial services sector.

Mr. Redwood: My right hon. Friend recently welcomed the statement of Sir David Walker and the publication of the new core rules. One of the most important recent changes in the regulatory system is that which encourages clear core rules and the minimum number of additional rules. My right hon. Friend also praised the wish of the regulatory bodies to concentrate compliance work on pursuing those cases that give most reason to cause suspicion. He has drawn attention to the efficacy of stressing disclosure rather than prescriptive rules. I am sure that the House will agree that these are welcome improvements in our system.

Mr. Buckley: Are not the regulations full of loopholes and ambiguities which, from Barlow Clowes to the Levitt Group, have not fulfilled the necessary requirements of control? Did not the Government accept and recognise in the body of the text of the companies legislation in 1989 that some changes are needed in the regulations? Does the Minister accept that there should be two regulatory bodies and that there should be compulsory regulation rather than the present system?

Mr. Redwood: That would mean the wholesale abolition of a large number of excellent regulatory bodies. The purpose of the self-regulatory system is to allow people, within defined limits, to make their own decisions about which body they wish to join and the conduct of the regulation in those bodies. I do not agree that the regulations are out of date or in need of wholesale reform in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. If he wishes to draw attention to particular loopholes or difficulties in the regulations, I or the regulatory bodies should be happy to look into them carefully. It is not fair to say that Barlow


Clowes demonstrated that the current regulatory system is ineffective because that problem developed before the enactment of the Financial Services Act.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend realise that the financial sector does not lie only in the City of London? A great expansion in financial services has taken place in and around my constituency and my constituents need clear rules so that they can expand their businesses not only in the United Kingdom but in Europe.

Mr. Redwood: I agree with my hon. Friend that the financial services sector extends widely geographically, as well as in terms of its range of service and products. He has my assurance that I shall do everything in my power to further the interests of those legitimate businesses here and in the European Community.

West Yorkshire (Development)

Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to visit West Yorkshire during the next three months to discuss industrial and regional development.

Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend has no current plans to do so.

Mrs. Mahon: That is a disgraceful answer. Calderdale has lost 3,000 jobs in the past 12 months, most of them in manufacturing. We get no outside aid and one area in my constituency, Sowerby Bridge, has been particularly devastated by the Government's economic policies. We were promised help by another Department, but it pulled out at the last minute. Is not it time that the Government developed a regional policy to help towns such as mine which are suffering badly because of the Government's disastrous economic policies?

Mr. Leigh: As one might expect, the hon. Lady does not give the whole picture about what is happening in Yorkshire. Perhaps she missed last week's Yorkshire Post, which I have here. It says:
Business confidence in Yorkshire, although falling, is more buoyant than anywhere else in the nation, the Confederation of British Industry claimed last night.
The 'not having it quite as bad' evidence, backed up by yesterday's small cut in interest rates, bolstered beliefs that the region might be nearing the bottom of its recession.
Unemployment in Calderdale has fallen by 5,000 in the past five years. The hon. Lady, who always strikes me as having the charm of a tricoteuse in the French revolution, should, for once, give the good news about Calderdale, which is well placed.

Mrs. Peacock: When my hon. Friend visits West Yorkshire, as well as looking at what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) mentioned, will he examine some of the successful companies that have been investing, are investing and are planning to invest in the future?

Mr. Leigh: Yes, of course. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) did not say that 20,000 new companies have set up in Yorkshire. She did not explain all the advantages that Yorkshire and Humberside have in the single market in attracting inward investment. She did not mention, in her strictures about regional policy, that in the current public expenditure survey round, we are planning to spend £600 million on regional policy.

Ms. Quin: If the Minister decides to have discussions with people in West Yorkshire or elsewhere on regional policy, will he take the opportunity of disowning the views that he gave in the No Turning Back group publication on regional policy, in which he claimed that European regional policy and the European regional development fund served no purpose? Will he make it clear to the House that the views of that group are not the views of the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Leigh: There seem to be three phases in the life of a parliamentarian—angry young man, angry old man and Minister in the middle. As a Minister, I fully support Government policy.

Mr. Michael Brown: Speaking as a member of the No Turning Back group to another member of the group, may I again draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Yorkshire Post from which he just quoted and refer him to its business section last Thursday where the headline was:
Yorkshire industry lifts its head above the gloom.
May I draw his attention, for the occasion when he visits Yorkshire and Humberside, to an article referring to the growth in the docks industry in the Yorkshire and Humberside region which it says is a result of the removal of the restrictive practices that characterised the industry? Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) that the message is that Yorkshire and Humberside benefit every time restrictive practices are lifted?

Mr. Leigh: I have to tell Opposition Members that I could hardly fail to visit Yorkshire and Humberside. I do so every Saturday when I go across the Humber bridge to do my shopping in one of the supermarkets of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) speaks out well for Humberside. He led the fight for the port and we congratulate him.

CBI

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the CBI to discuss the condition of industry in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet the president of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss manufacturing industry.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): My right hon. Friend regularly meets representatives of the CBI. He met the director general most recently last week.

Mr. Davies: When the Secretary of State next meets the CBI, will he discuss with it the latest manufacturing output figures which, as I understand it, show that the value of manufacturing output has declined by some £5 billion and that the level of investment has decreased by 15 per cent? Will he also discuss with the CBI the GDP figures published today which show that, officially, we are in recession? If the Department can bring itself to acknowledge that we are in recession, will the Minister tell us what precisely he proposes to do to get industry out of that recession?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman may agree that, as the songwriter might have put it, recession is among industry's unfavourite things. I remind him and the House of some other unfavourite things of industry: excessive trade union power, high rates of business taxation, too much Government interference and continuing high rates of inflation. Those are the things which characterise Labour Governments and make them very unfavourite among business men.

Mr. Knox: When the Secretary of State next meets the president of the CBI, will he discuss with him the fact that manufacturing output last December was 4 per cent. higher than in December 1973—a period of 17 years? Does my hon. Friend believe that that represents satisfactory progress?

Mr. Sainsbury: Manufacturing output in the 1980s grew faster than in Germany, France or Italy. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we should look at the underlying strength of manufacturing industry and at the underlying strength of British industry. The massive strides and great improvements that we made during the 1980s mean that manufacturing industry, like the whole of British industry, is a great deal stronger and more resilient as it faces the 1990s than it was in 1979.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister share with the CBI the recognition that there is a terrible underlying weakness in many manufacturing industries, including hosiery, textiles, shoes and other staple industries in areas such as Leicester which were firm before the Government came into power, but are now in a state of absolute disaster?

Mr. Sainsbury: It is strange that the hon. and learned Gentleman seems so ready to join those of his hon. Friends who spend their time running down the performance and capabilities of British industry. Manufacturing productivity grew faster in the 1980s than in any other major industrial country. It has improved by a half since 1979 and we should applaud that.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that one problem faced by industry and others is caused by state and private monopolies? British Rail is increasing fares way above inflation; British Telecom, British Gas and the water companies are all raising their prices; and now the electricity industry has announced that it will increase charges by 13 per cent. Why should all those concerned be able to protect themselves against last year's losses when they help to encourage the losses of private industry, which has no monopolies on which to fall back?

Mr. Sainsbury: As the House knows, my hon. Friend is a robust supporter of competition. That is what Conservative Members believe in, although I have serious doubts whether the Opposition do.
I shall not go into detail about all the industries that my hon. Friend mentioned, but we like to introduce competition and we ensure that regulatory control is introduced where it is absent. Such control usually ensures that the increases allowed are substantially lower than the level of inflation.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Are not manufacturing investment, manufacturing output and manufacturing employment now falling? Today's figures confirm a 6 per cent. drop in manufacturing output which is unique in western Europe. As the Minister cannot blame OPEC, the Gulf conflict, the

EC, workers or management for the recession, whom does he blame? Is not this a direct result of the mistaken policies of discredited Ministers in a failed Government?

Mr. Sainsbury: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting his facts right. It makes a change. Yesterday, for instance, when he alleged that manufacturing output had increased by only 7 per cent. since 1979, he was only 70 per cent. wrong; the increase was 12 per cent. He is improving.

Steel Industry

Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the profitability of the British steel industry.

Mr. Lilley: I have every confidence in the long-term prosperity of the British steel industry now that all of it is in the private sector and free from Government control.

Mr. Walker: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the latest figures, which reveal that steel exports are increasing by about 9·5 per cent. and that imports are down by about 6·3 per cent., show clearly that the British steel industry—now privatised—is a guarantee of security in a difficult and troubled world? The failed policies of the Soviet Union and the rest of eastern Europe and those of the socialists on the Opposition Benches would guarantee the destruction of the industry and caused massive costs to the taxpayer in the past.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the previous Labour Government left office British Steel was losing about £1·7 billion a year; now it is making a profit of £700 million a year. If the company were still making a loss under state ownership, we should be bearing those losses: billions of pounds would have to be spent on it instead of on hospitals, schools and other services which we all want and need and which the Government should be financing.

Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that British Steel is suffering a severe recession in orders as a result of the Government's incompetent economic policies? Is he aware that it is able to survive financially only because the Government wrote off all its debt on privatisation, thus leaving it free of debt at a time when its competitors in Europe are in very different financial circumstances?

Mr. Lilley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) pointed out, British Steel is boosting its exports in response to weaker home demand and is also displacing imports. That must be good news. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should take it back into state ownership? If so, is that the policy of the Labour party?

Mr. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the end of the era in which politicians meddled and told it which plant it should keep open, British Steel was the world's biggest loss-maker and Britain had a chronic trade deficit in steel and iron products? Since then, British Steel has become the most profitable steel company in Europe and our trade deficit in those products has changed into a substantial surplus. The last thing that British Steel wants is to go back to the bad old days when politicians told it how to run its business.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and he makes his point extremely well. What is more, if we had a


state-owned, inefficient steel industry we should have to prop it up with protection and all steel-using industries would be forced to buy high-cost, inefficiently produced steel. That is very much what the Labour party seems to want.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Secretary of State reply to two factual points? First, can he confirm that, in respect of the Ravenscraig strip mill, the Government's policy. as set out by the Secretary of State for Scotland, is that British Steel should review and reconsider its decision with a view to reversing it? Secondly, can he, as the Minister responsible for these matters, tell us what practical steps he has taken to implement that policy?

Mr. Lilley: I am always happy to put the hon. Member right on the facts. I entirely endorse the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Favell: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on setting his face firmly against protectionism. Britain's steel industry—indeed, all British industry—grew at a time when we believed in world free trade in not only manufactured goods but agricultural goods. May we have an assurance that my right hon. Friend will not allow the idiotic common agricultural policy to ruin the GATT talks?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is a great and forceful defender of free trade and I entirely endorse his remarks. We must try to ensure a speedy and successful conclusion to the GATT round. I welcome the news that talks are likely to resume today. We shall do everything in our power to ensure that the Community plays a constructive role on agriculture, as on all other matters, with a view to securing a successful outcome to the round.

Chemical and Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new initiatives he plans in the export of materials that can be used in the manufacture of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Mr. Sainsbury: We continue to work with like-minded countries to take effective action to prevent the proliferation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Controls on the export of sensitive materials for use for these purposes are kept under continual review.

Mr. Flynn: Has it occurred to the Minister that if the Gulf war had taken place a year hence, Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles might have been armed with Iraqi nuclear warheads? Is not it a scandal that British companies exported to Saddam Hussein specialist equipment that he has used in his nuclear programme? Those companies include Avesta of Birmingham, Consave of Glasgow, Magnatech of Crawley, Matric Churchill of Coventry and Swift Lewick of Rotherham. Will the Minister give us an assurance that when the nightmare of the Gulf war is over, Britain will lead the world in reducing the international arms trade, not just by exhortation but by example?

Mr. Sainsbury: The whole House will share the hon. Gentleman's worry that materials that might facilitate the production of nuclear weapons should be exported. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, not least because he tables a very large number of questions on the subject, that the

Government's policy is to prevent the proliferation of such weapons. We maintain stringent controls on the export of all weapons and related material, equipment and technology.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scud missiles are, in fact, Russian?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is right.

Retail Bankruptcies

Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what protection his Department is making available to consumers who suffer loss because of retail bankruptcies during the recession.

Mr. Leigh: Where goods are purchased under a credit agreement, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides that the credit grantor is jointly and severally liable with the retailer for breach of contract. This provision applies where the cash price of goods is between £100 and £30,000, with up to £15,000 paid for on credit. I am not aware of any need for further provisions.

Mr. McMaster: Does not the Minister recognise that unemployment is shooting up and that businesses the length and breadth of the country are closing? Will he offer some form of protection, or at least some hope, to consumers who are suffering; or will those people have to wait for a Labour Government?

Mr. Leigh: I am not sure whether it is Labour party policy to disagree with the Director General of Fair Trading who said—the hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this—that voluntary initiatives for industry were the right way forward.

The Gulf (Exports)

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prospects for British exports to Kuwait and other Gulf states following the conclusion of the present hostilities.

Mr. Sainsbury: When Kuwait is liberated United Kingdom companies can resume supplying a wide range of goods and services. In recent talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Kuwait Government have promised a warm welcome to United Kingdom companies participating in the reconstruction of Kuwait.
I assure my hon. Friend that the British Government will continue to do all they can to encourage and reinforce the efforts of our manufacturing and service industries.

Mr. Arnold: Given the considerable and supreme efforts that Britain has made towards the liberation of Kuwait, is my hon. Friend confident that British industry will show itself to be effective in grasping the opportunities that will arise?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend will be aware that British industry has been taking energetic action to that end, supported fully by my Department. An industry task force is in place in Dammam and it will be seeing representatives of the Kuwaiti reconstruction project office tomorrow for further discussions on the part that British industry can play in the reconstruction of Kuwait.

Transport Disruption (London)

Mr. John Prescott: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the transport problems in London today and yesterday.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): London Underground was subject to significant disruption yesterday. The major disruption to services was on the Central line. Trains had been held up while suspect packages at Bond Street and Liverpool Street stations were being examined by the police.
At one stage, it became necessary for the London fire brigade to be called as a result of a smoke incident on one of these trains. It was considered necessary for the electric current to be disconnected and the passengers to be evacuated. This took some considerable time and I pay tribute to the passengers, the railway staff, and all others concerned in the evacuation. London Underground has initiated an inquiry into all the circumstances concerning that incident.
With regard to British Rail, since the bombs at Paddington and Victoria on Monday, British Rail has been subject to a large number of incidents involving bomb threats and suspect packages. Since Monday morning, the British Transport police have dealt with about 85 hoax bomb threats, of which around 45 have been in London. In addition, the British Transport police have dealt with 55 suspect packages, of which 35 have been in London.
As a result, British Rail, acting on the advice of the police, has closed a number of stations in London and elsewhere. British Rail has well established contingency plans for clearing stations, which British Rail staff activate on advice from the police, who then undertake searches and deal with any suspect packages.
The worst disruption yesterday was at Reading, where the station was closed for about three hours following bomb threats and the discovery of a suspect package. In London, Charing Cross and Fenchurch Street were each closed for an hour and a half in total, and Liverpool Street was closed for half an hour in the evening peak. Today, part of Victoria was closed for an hour and a quarter; Euston was closed for an hour and a half; and Paddington was closed for two hours.
I am sure that the House will want to join me in delivering two important messages. The first is to ordinary members of the travelling public. Their continuing vigilance is absolutely vital. No matter how much disruption may result from a false alarm—for example, a suspect package that turns out to be wholly innocent—it is better to endure that disruption than to take the risk of a successful terrorist attack. The second is a message to the hoaxers. Those who make such hoax calls are acting in a criminal fashion, they are risking innocent people's lives and they will be liable to receive very severe punishment if they are identified and prosecuted.

Mr. Prescott: The House will thank the Secretary of State for his statement. We wish to identify ourselves with his congratulations on the superb activities of our emergency services once again. We want to add our admiration for the fortitude of the passengers faced with those difficulties over the past two or three days.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the difficulties of the past few days are not due entirely to the dastardly act of the IRA or the criminal acts of hoaxers which have plagued our security system and which need to be condemned strongly by everyone? Is it not time that he recognised that the failure of the transport system in the past two days can be traced back to inadequate equipment, the failure of new and old equipment and the lack of staff, whose numbers have been cut by thousands, and failure to maintain security and deal with emergencies? Despite that, those cuts are to continue, at the Government's request.
Does the Secretary of State accept that there are inadequate financial resources for London Underground and British Rail, as pointed out by inquiry report after inquiry report, by Select Committee reports on the London underground system and by the chairman of British Rail this weekend, who made clear the inadequacy of financial resources for our transport system?
Will the Secretary of State review the financial framework for British Rail and the underground system, end his obsession with privatisation and end the miserable experiment of attempting to run the capital's transport system without subsidies, which is not achieved anywhere in the world? Londoners are entitled to a good transport system. The fact that they do not have one is directly due to the policy of this Government.

Mr. Rifkind: I suppose it was predictable, but I must confess that I am rather saddened that the hon. Gentle man should seek to use the events of the past couple of days, which were primarily caused by terrorist incidents, bomb hoaxers and other matters affecting security, to make his ritual comments on investment in British Rail. He was quoted in the press a couple of days ago as saying that the number of British Transport police had been reduced. I informed him yesterday that, yet again, he had got his facts wrong. In 1982, British Rail employed 1,456 transport police; in 1991, it employs 1,638. In 1982, London Underground employed 284 transport police; in 1991, it employs 389. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make remarks about security, I shall be happy to listen to him very carefully, but he should not try to use the distress of the past 48 hours to make rather sad and pathetic representations on other matters.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that what he has just said will be echoed by genuine Londoners, who will have been sickened by the cheap political claptrap of the Opposition? Will he take it from me that the London commuter will not be scared off his job by the thugs of the IRA or by the hypocrisy of the Labour party?

Mr. Rifkind: It is the characteristic of the British public that real or possible terrorist threats simply stiffen their resolve to meet those challenges in a forthright and solemn fashion.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I join the Secretary of State in condemning the terrorist and the hoaxer, who have added enormously to the disruption of the past couple of days.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman is backing every horse in the race.

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman would listen for a change, it might be respectful and be appreciated by the public.
Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, if the chaos and confusion of the past couple of days, which is suffered by the London commuter day in day out, is to be alleviated, the Government must show commitment and co-ordination? Unless the Government give a commitment to funding and there is co-ordination of information so that people know when to travel, and so that buses, trains and the tube work together, there will always be confusion in the capital, and the country will suffer as a result.

Mr. Rifkind: Of course I respect what the hon. Gentleman says about the need for proper investment in the London underground. The problems yesterday were on the Central line. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the refurbishment of the Central line is the single most important priority of London Underground and that it is undertaking a £700 million programme of refurbishment.

Mr. Robert Adley: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that no one is keener than me to have more investment in the railways. Does he accept that tens of thousands of ordinary families feel that the inability of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) to control his natural antipathy towards the police is sickening? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people feel that the hon. Gentleman's constant criticism of British Transport police and the Metropolitan police gives comfort only to the IRA and to the morons who make hoax telephone calls? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Conservative and most decent Labour Members reject everything that the hon. Gentleman says on this issue?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the British Transport police do a superb job in difficult circumstances. They deserve the full support of the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: "Significant disruption" is one of those classic British understatements to describe the experience that many thousands of people had to endure yesterday in the tunnels between Bethnal Green and Liverpool Street. They were faced with darkness and heat for up to six hours. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman pay particular attention to an additional feature on the Central line? Yesterday, and again this morning, smoke came from, I believe, the engine of a stationary train—I am not sure of the cause. Clearly smoke was a great additional hazard. I cannot believe that that smoke was caused by anything other than the state of the railway.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Clearly the cause of the smoke needs to be investigated. London Underground is investigating. Such incidents are not peculair to London Underground or to the United Kingdom. When they occur, they must be investigated and proper corrective action taken.

Mr. Steve Norris: On behalf of the thousands of my constituents who use the Central line every day, many of whom were trapped for several hours yesterday, I should like to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement which, apart from anything else, shows how appalling it is that, in this day and age, dozens

of hoaxes are occurring and parcels are left around to disrupt the lives of those who want to go about their lawful business and get to work. We at least very much welcome the investment of more than £600 million, which will produce rolling stock, trains and signal equipment that should be able to reduce the occasional emergencies caused by suspected fires.
I should like to put one point that is clearly important. In the wake of the King's Cross fire, it is understandable that railway authorities should act with caution on every occasion. Yesterday's events were by no means unique—they are a common occurrence on the line. Hardly a day goes by without massive disruption caused by suspected fires. Will my right hon. and learned Friend talk urgently to the management of London Underground to ensure that the procedures are followed to detect and identify callers and to follow up suspected hoaxes so as to reduce disruption to a minimum?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes some fair observations. Part of yesterday's difficulty was that, because of the presence of suspicious objects, trains were stopped and, when the electricity was disconnected, a significant number of trains were on the line. The number of people who had to be evacuated from the trains was significantly greater than is normal in such incidents. However, I take the points that my hon. Friend rightly made.

Miss Kate Hoey: I too wish to express my gratitude to commuters for their fortitude. The people of Northern Ireland have become used to such disruptions over the years. Given the extra safety precautions and the extra cost that that will impose on British Rail and London Underground, have the Government any plans to increase the money available, or will money have to come from the hard-pressed commuters through their fares?

Mr. Rifkind: In the first instance, obviously we shall hope to hear from British Rail and London Underground what conclusions they draw about any improved security measures arising out of recent events. Of course we shall look sympathetically at any reasonable proposals involving new security-related expenditure.

Sir Philip Goodhart: As terrorists invariably want to cause the maximum disruption at the least risk to themselves, does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that the closing down of London's railway system on Monday represented the biggest victory for terrorism in the past 10 years? As it is inevitable that there will be further hoax calls—and, possibly, further bombs—will my right hon. and learned Friend consider calling on Army units to provide guards at London's mainline terminals until the bombers are caught? From time to time, the Army provides extra guards at Heathrow. Surely our rail commuters deserve as much protection as air passengers.

Mr. Rifkind: On the appropriate level of security that might be required, I should wish, of course, to take the advice of the chief constable of the British Transport police. I shall obviously draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention. In matters of this kind, clearly the views of the police on their ability to cope with what is required will carry considerable weight.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the full horror for my constituents who were incarcerated underground in heat and smoke on crowded trains for hours yesterday? Will he take it from me—someone who was brought up in a London Transport railway family—that London Transport was once the envy of the world? It is now dirty, squalid, unsafe, unreliable, and more fitting to a third-world country, because of lack of investment. The people who run London Transport are crazed ideological fanatics who want to eliminate all public subsidy. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that, if London Transport were run by elected Londoners who were accountable to the people of London, the situation would be transformed? When will he give the control of London Transport back to the people of London?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his view on that matter, but I do not believe that the quality of service provided by London Underground would be enhanced by his proposal. I suspect that even an elected authority of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests would still look to central Government for the funds that might be required.

Mr. Ian Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend should know that the disruption caused by the closing of stations because of awful terrorist bombs and also hoax scares is understood by my constituents. What they find more difficult to understand is that, despite the investment of £1 million a day by Network SouthEast at the moment, British Rail still cannot do the simple things right. It still cannot communicate with travellers when they are stranded. It still cannot make adequate arrangements at other stations so that passengers who have to get out short of mainline stations are properly looked after.
Does not that confirm that, when mainline stations are shut down, there is inadequate co-ordination between various levels of transport in London so that my constituents and those of other hon. Members can be looked after in places such as Clapham Junction, and make a smooth and easy transfer between mainline railways, buses and underground trains? We must look urgently at that matter because, sadly, those crazy and awful events may continue.

Mr. Rifkind: When I last met the chairman of British Rail, I discussed with him the need to ensure full and proper information for passengers who might be stranded or otherwise experience difficulties as a result of disruption. He assured me that British Rail will be giving considerable attention to the need to improve the present unsatisfactory levels of information that are provided to its passengers when problems occur.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: I believe that it is established that the incident yesterday between Bethnal Green and Liverpool Street was nothing to do with IRA activity or with hoaxers. I believe that the Central line still has guards on its trains, although, sadly, other lines have not. I hope that they will remain. There are such things as pagers and other modern equipment. It should not have been difficult for people to be informed about what had happened so that they were not so panic-stricken. I cannot understand why they were left in the dark for six hours, so that asthmatics became ill and old people fainted. The

explanation that we have been given today is not sufficient. I ask the Secretary of State please to hold a thorough investigation, to report back to the House about why that unbelievable incident took place, and to ensure that it does not happen again.

Mr. Rifkind: I assure the hon. Lady that there will be a full investigation of the incident. Although there was no actual terrorist threat yesterday, the causes of the problem originated with the finding of two suspicious objects, which had been left on the train, but which clearly could have contained explosive devices. I am sure that the hon. Lady would be the first to agree that it is right to be careful on such occasions because, until such objects are examined properly and competently, it would be irresponsible to expose the travelling public to them.
The hon. Lady is right to express concern at the number of hours that people spent in the underground. That flowed from the decision to evacuate the train once the electricity current had been disconnected. As many passengers had to be taken more than a mile to the nearest station, considerable problems inevitably arose, as well as fatigue for the older passengers who were affected.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the many constituents who have complained to me about being incarcerated in such great discomfort that, as my right hon. and learned Friend has stated, some of them became ill? Furthermore, there was no communication about what was going on, why they were being kept where they were or how long the situation was likely to continue. Will my right hon. and learned Friend press London Underground to do something about its communications with its passengers in that sort of situation and in others?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. I attach the same importance as my hon. Friend clearly does to the provision of quick, accurate and reliable information to passengers of either the Underground or British Rail whenever disruption occurs. That should be done, and there is no fundamental reason why it cannot be done at present. There is, therefore, an urgent need for both British Rail and London Underground to address that matter.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: While I welcome the condemnation of those acts, and associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), will the Secretary of State tell us why it was not possible simply to shunt the trains forward or backwards to the nearest station, instead of leaving people incarcerated for up to six hours? Does he accept that, although the management of London Transport and the transport police have a lot of experience at catching pickpockets or pursuing fare evaders, they do not have day-to-day experience of coping with terrorism and deciding what is or is not a bogus warning? Might it not be worthwhile to bring people over from Belfast, such as officers who have that day-to-day experience, who can give much better advice about how such problems can be managed?

Mr. Rifkind: On the hon. Gentleman's earlier question, once the decision had been taken to disconnect the electricity on safety grounds, for obvious reasons it became impossible to contemplate shunting the trains to any particular point. On the hon. Gentleman's latter


questions, it is for the police in London to consider whether they could benefit from external advice of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that I have to protect subsequent business, but in view of the importance of this matter to hon. Members, I shall take three more questions from each side, but I am afraid that then we must move on.

Mr. John Marshall: May I first associate my constituency and myself with my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the evils of the IRA and the irresponsibility of the hoaxers? How does the level of capital expenditure by London Transport today compare with the level that prevailed in 1985–86, when it was controlled by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many hon. Members believe that London's transport problems would be eased if London's buses were deregulated, as has happened elsewhere in the country?

Mr. Rifkind: Expenditure on London Underground in the next three years will be approximately 100 per cent. higher than in the past three years. That compares very favourably indeed with the legacy of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that the unacceptable hazards experienced by Central line passengers yesterday would have been increased if London Transport had initiated driver-only operation on that line, with the support of Her Majesty's Government? Will he assure us that the investigation which he mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) will be an inspection by the railway inspectorate, and that the report will be published?

Mr. Rifkind: At this stage, London Underground is carrying out its own internal inquiry. I have yet to determine whether any further inquiry will be necessary. In response to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it is clearly for London Underground as the operator to determine whether it is acceptable and safe to have driver-only trains, or whether some other mode is more appropriate.

Mr. David Evans: Is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State aware that thousands of my constituents were inconvenienced during the past two or three weeks, but that they have also been inconvenienced during the past two or three years? Every time there is a snowfall, it is the wrong snow. Then we have terrorist attacks. Then we have hoaxes. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my constituents are simply not prepared to put up with it any longer? Is not it time that the managements of British Rail and London Underground were sacked? The employees of London Underground are hard-working but the management should be sacked, just as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) should be sacked from his job.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the last suggestion which he helpfully made. In response to the earlier part of his question, I sympathise

very much with the frustration of his constituents. The chairmen of both British Rail and London Underground took office in the relatively recent past. They must be given the opportunity to carry out very necessary reforms to ensure that we achieve the level and quality of management on both British Rail and London Underground which my hon. Friend's constituents are entitled to expect.

Mr. Harry Cohen: The ultimate management, of course, are the Government. They are the ones who should be sacked. Many of my constituents who were caught for long hours in conditions of intolerable stress probably thought that they were in Baghdad. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will examine the issue of trains being stopped between stations? Associated with that, will he pick up the shameful cuts in cleaning staff and station staff'? If we had had more of those, the stations would have been cleared and checked earlier, and the trains could have been driven through to them.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's observations are somewhat confused. The problems yesterday were caused by the discovery of suspicious objects on the trains. Inevitably, that had to be dealt with in a proper and responsible fashion. That is the background which the hon. Gentleman should appreciate.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Bearing in mind the fact that these despicable hoaxers are in fact, if not in intention, the terrorists' best friends, will my right hon. and learned Friend examine the penalties available to the courts to deal with hoaxers when they are found out?

Mr. Rifkind: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but clearly hoaxers should realise that their behaviour could sometimes lead to the most serious consequences and in certain circumstances to loss of life. In that event, they would face serious penalties if they were convicted by the courts.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State would not be so complacent about the chaos on London Transport if he were a regular user of it. Many tens of thousands of Londoners know just how miserable the Central line is on a daily basis. British Rail and London Transport cannot be blamed for the criminal activities of the IRA or, indeed, the sick perverts who make hoax telephone calls. But the trouble on the Central line yesterday and today was caused largely by the clapped-out rolling stock which is used on the Central line. The smoke came from overheated brakes. The reason why they were overheating was that the trains were overcrowded and could not carry the passengers through.
The Secretary of State referred to a £700 million uprating of the Central line. We have been hearing about that for three years. How much of that £700 million has already been spent on the Central line? To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon) said, how come British Transport police and the underground staff—never mind the passengers—do not know what is going on? How come, when a satellite can spot a wart on the end of someone's nose, we cannot communicate properly through telephones and pagers so that London Transport staff can explain to passengers what is happening?

Mr. Rifkind: I have some sympathy with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's observations. British Rail and London Underground must make a radical reassessment of their information systems, because it is not unreasonable to assume, as the hon. Gentleman does, that, in this modern age, that kind of information should be able to be communicated easily and reliably to passengers who are suffering disruption and problems.
There is indeed a £700 million programme under way now, coaches are already being refurbished and line is being modernised. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that instead of carping about it.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 8 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Dudley Fishburn
Sir Peter Emery
Sir Bernard Braine

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Ordered,
That the draft Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

National Audit (Scotland)

Mr. William McKelvey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the National Audit Act 1983 to give the National Audit Office additional duties in respect of public expenditure in Scotland, including the provision of assistance to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs of the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.
I am glad to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill, which will be effective providing, of course, that it has safe passage through the House. It concerns an issue of particular importance to those of us who represent Scotland.
Some people may wonder why I am seeking to find additional assistance for a Select Committee which, disgracefully, has still not been set up. The failure to establish that Select Committee means that we are daily in breach of the Standing Orders here in the mother of all Parliaments. That is scandalous.
I must record that the Leader of the House has been negligent in his duty, and since he is a fellow Scot that negligence is even more hurtful. The people of Scotland will not forget his negation of duty, but I hope that the Bill will help the right hon. Gentleman to overcome some of the problems he has experienced in trying to set up a genuine and proper Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
In the past four years, we have had no opportunity to examine affairs in Scotland. We need the added assistance of that Select Committee, because some 3,000 civil servants are scampering around Scotland doing heavens knows what, apparently answerable to no one. There is a backlog of issues that we should have been discussing and which we must discuss once the Select Committee has begun its work.
If that Select Committee had existed, it would have investigated the socio-economic effect of the loss of jobs that Scotland has sustained in the past four years. The most outstanding example of that would be the shambles created in the steel industry by the attitude of Bob Scholey, the chairman of British Steel, and the team who work for him. The Select Committee would have investigated Ravenscraig, Clydesdale, Dalzell and the role of British Steel in the demise of the Scottish steel industry. That industry has almost disappeared from Scotland—which seems to be British Steel's intention.
The Select Committee would also have been forced to investigate the decline of the mining industry. In my constituency, in Ayrshire, there are no deep pit miners left. There are large pockets of unemployment in Cumnock, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), where the male unemployment rate is about 52 per cent. That in itself would have warranted some investigation to find out what could be done to replace the jobs that had been lost.
The only inquiry in the mining industry involved the reopening of Monkton Hall colliery to produce green coal—low-sulphur coal—and was commissioned by the Scottish National Union of Mineworkers, with the aid of local authorities in the district. Those authorities have had to incur expenditure that should have been borne by central Government on behalf of Scotland.
We have witnessed the demise of fishing and agriculture. The farmers recently conducted a magnificent


lobby of Parliament and were able to persuade hon. Members that farming, particularly the hill farms in Scotland, was in serious decline and something had to be done urgently to stop the continuing crisis and numerous closures.
As a Select Committee, we would have had a heyday discussing the funding of local government, because during the Government's term of office the revenue support grant has been slashed, capital allocations have been squeezed and the housing support grant has virtually disappeared up the loch.
A Select Committee on Scottish Affairs would have been the appropriate forum to consider closely the subject of the poll tax, which the House discussed yesterday. In Scotland, we were forced to endure the poll tax and were used as guinea pigs to test the tax one year before it was introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom. The unbiased report of a Select Committee would certainly have made the unanimous decision that the poll tax, which was unwanted, unwarranted and uncared for, should be disposed of in Scotland.
The House would not have wasted its time discussing the matter, because it would not have been put into operation in Scotland. The Select Committee could not and would not come to any decision except that the present Secretary of State for the Environment seeks to amend the unamendable and is tinkering with something that should not be tinkered with. Some £558 million poll tax dues are still to be collected in Scotland, which shows that the situation is not only appalling, but cannot be allowed to continue.
Five years ago, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs went to Glasgow to examine housing, paying particular attention to dampness in housing. All the members of that Committee, including its illustrious Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie), were appalled at the living conditions of the people we visited. The dampness in their homes made clear to all Committee members the appalling life led by those people. Their existence was overshadowed by the awful smell produced by the dampness.
Council officials had told them that it had something to do with the residents' life style, but it was due to a combination of badly designed houses and the fact that the people were so poverty-stricken that they could not afford appropriate heating. To this day, some of those people are still languishing in those appalling conditions. The Select Committee suggested that £50 million to £100 million would have been needed to begin to sort out the problem in Glasgow alone, and the then Minister was quick to jump in with an offer of £3 million.
The Government were unwilling or unable to put names forward for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the Opposition were not slow to set up their own alternative Select Committee. Its members were the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Argyll and Bute

(Mrs. Michie) and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), and for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). We discussed the financing and delivery of the Scottish health service.
We produced a report, at the expense of the Labour party, and a very good report it was. But we discovered, first, that we could not subpoena Ministers or witnesses; because of that, many of them were reluctant to give evidence, and none of them would give evidence on the record. We therefore had to rely mainly on people who worked in the health services to supply us with evidence. Secondly, we attempted to enlist financial support from the House of Commons, but Mr. Speaker advised us that that would be out of order—so we had to find the funds ourselves.
The report cost us more than £3,000. We sold more than 300 copies of it, which must be a record for a Select Committee report on Scotland. However, like thousands of businesses throughout the land, and especially in Scotland, we nevertheless found that we had a cash flow problem. Being skint, we had to go into a state of suspended animation and wait to see whether we could find funds to get the Committee going.
As a defender of Back Benchers and democracy, Mr. Speaker must, I know, be unhappy about this matter. In this Parliament, in the country that is supposed to be the mother of all Parliaments, the epitome of democracy, we stand here day after day in breach of our own Standing Orders. Somehow, that must be put right. I suggest that we place in the hands of Mr. Speaker the power to nominate a Select Committee and put it into operation if the Leader of the House neglects his duty to do so. That there should be no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is a disgraceful slur on the democratic structures of this House, and an affront to the people of Scotland.
It gives me great pleasure to move this motion. I hope that the Bill will be given safe passage through to the statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Mrs. Irene Adams and Mr. John McFall.

NATIONAL AUDIT (SCOTLAND)

Mr. William McKelvey accordingly presented a Bill to amend the National Audit Act 1983 to give the National Audit Office additional duties in respect of public expenditure in Scotland, including the provision of assistance to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs of the House of Commons; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 March and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 9

SEXUAL OFFENDERS

`.—(1) Where, in the case of a long-term or short-term prisoner—

(a) the whole or any part of his sentence was imposed for a sexual offence; and
(b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence, having had regard to the matters mentioned in section 26(6)(a) and (b) above, directed that this section should apply,
sections 27(3) and 30(1) above shall each have effect as if for the reference to three-quarters of his sentence there were substituted a reference to the whole of that sentence.

(2) In this section "sexual offence" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 25.

Mr. Patten: These amendments will enable the courts to require many sexual offenders to undergo longer and more intensive programmes of supervision. The purpose is to increase the confidence of the courts—that is very important—and of the public in the arrangements for dealing with sexual offenders, to protect the public from the risk of serious harm from sexual offenders, and to try to help sex offenders to reduce the risk of their committing further sexual offences in future.
New clause 9 provides for sex offenders sentenced to custody for 12 months or more to undergo an extended period of supervision on release from prison. I hope that the House will welcome that. Under the Bill, all offenders serving sentences of more than 12 months will be supervised in the community until they have completed three quarters of their sentences. New clause 9 will allow the supervision to continue right up to the end of the sentence, if the court considers that it will be helpful in preventing further offending and—this, too, is very important—in protecting the public as well as rehabilitating the offender. It will be for the sentencer to indicate in passing sentence that the offender was one to whom the extended supervision requirements would apply. The court would have to have regard to the criteria set out in clause 26(6), the need to protect the public from serious harm, which I believe to be of overwhelming importance, and the desirability of preventing offenders from reoffending.
The most dangerous sex offenders rightly receive custodial sentences, and the courts are awarding longer and longer custodial sentences, particularly following the important guideline judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in the Court of Appeal in the case of Billam in 1985 about rape. Quite a number of sex offenders, however—this may surprise but, I hope, not alarm some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Members on the

Opposition Benches—are not sentenced to custodial punishment but are given probation orders and other punishments in the community. It is the Government's belief that some of these people—about 1,000 per year are sentenced in this way—would also benefit from extra supervision.
Accordingly, amendment No. 25 inserts an additional requirement into part II of schedule 1 of the Bill. It provides that where a sex offender is placed on probation and the court wishes to include additional requirements directed at his sexual offending—it is almost always "his" rather than "her"—the normal maximum of 60 days, which applies to requirements for attendance at a probation centre or participation in specified activities under paragraphs 2 and 3 of part II, can be extended as directed by the court.
This will give the sex offender the chance to have much more practical work done with him by the probation service and by the voluntary organisations who help the probation service. I pay tribute to what they do in trying to persuade sex offenders not to reoffend, to minimise the risk to the public and to women and children in particular. In both cases, the programme of supervision could be more intensive than with offenders whose activities do not pose a risk to the public.
Depending on the individual case, the programme might consist of more frequent and lengthy contact with the probation officer or direction to a special programme in an effort to make the offender face up to his criminal behaviour in this most difficult area of trying to stop sex offenders reoffending, to consider the consequences of his behaviour and to accept responsibility for his actions.
I have been told time and again—the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), with their links with the probation service, will not need to be told this—that sex offenders live in a fantasy world and are often not prepared to face the consequences of what they have done. They try to push it away or ignore that it has happened. They try to say that the victims actually wanted it to happen. It is critically important that these people should be brought face to face with the damage that they have done and accept responsibility for their actions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister tell us about the control mechanism, as it were, in new clause 9? At present, a person allowed out on parole has to meet the conditions of the parole up to the three-quarters mark. If he does not do so, there is a recall provision which involves his completing the whole sentence. Under the new clause, as I understand it, he will be under supervision until the end of the sentence, but what happens if in the last month of the sentence he fails to carry out the instructions or advice that has been given to him? There will be no control mechanism left.

Mr. Patten: The person will be subject, as always, to recall and being brought back before the court if he fails to carry out the programme of activity laid down by the court. Working with sex offenders must be one of the most difficult jobs for the probation service and for the voluntary agencies which help the probation service. It is very tough and demanding work and it is currently in the process of great development. I am confident that the probation service will build on its good practice in helping these offenders to control and contain their behaviour,


with a consequent reduction in reoffending sex offenders and much greater public safety for women and children. I commend the new clause and the amendment to the House.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: It is a sad fact that the number of sexual crimes has increased. Like the Government, the Opposition believe that there must be action to deter such offenders and to ensure that those who commit some of the ghastly offences about which we all know are deterred by appropriate sentences. We agree with the new clause and the amendment.
There are two Government proposals. The first provides that a court may, when imprisoning a sex offender, direct that he must be on licence or release for the whole of the sentence and not after the three quarters point, as is laid down in the Bill. Secondly, a court may direct that a sex offender who is placed on probation with a condition to participate in specified activities or a condition to attend a probation centre can be subject to that order for longer than 60 days.
The Government's stated aims are to provide further protection for the public and to help sex offenders not to commit further sexual offences. On the first of those points—deterrence—we strongly agree with the Government. On the other, we should like some clarification as to the Government's purposes, and the resources that they have and will dispose so as to deliver that intention, since their aim is to help offenders not to commit further sexual offences.
Sexual offenders often have inadequate personalities and a history of being sexually abused when children. Those of us who have read any of the case histories of sex offenders know what a ghastly cycle of sexual abuse and intimidation is carried on in generation after generation. We also know that throwing these people into a typical British prison, even in the 1990s, is not likely to help them to come to terms with their behaviour, or to correct that behaviour. The number of units in our prison system that provide such treatment is small, as both Ministers will acknowledge.
Our hesitation about the second of the Government's proposals arises from our worry that this cannot be delivered. We believe that sex offenders must be deterred and helped to come to terms with their offending, so that they can stop doing it. It is no good sentencing a sexual offender, throwing him into a ghastly prison with no treatment, no counselling and no psychiatric help, and then turning out someone who is sexually more deviant and pathological than he was when he went in.
What do we want to do with our society? Do we want this man—as the Minister said, it is nearly always a man—to come out of prison after five years likely to commit a more horrific sexual crime? This is a special kind of offence, and one that is becoming far more common in our time. It is crucial that sex offenders have adequate treatment within prison. Sadly, that is often not the case. There are few specialist programmes in prison, and it offers little protection for the public if offenders spend long periods without help and then get a few extra months of supervision on release. We do not think that those two things make sense. It is not the quantity of supervision which is important, but the quality.
The Minister has said that the most difficult task of probation officers must be dealing with and helping sex offenders. I think that is right. The training of probation

officers to ensure that they have the right qualities is scarce. Quality is difficult to obtain, even with good training. We need the right recruits, and then the right training. Sadly, the resources are not available. It is daft to introduce fine provisions in criminal justice legislation if they cannot be delivered with the resources available. I hope that the Minister can assure us that there will be a move on the quality of supervision and not just on its quantity.
Some sex offenders may benefit from a treatment programme on release which lasts longer than the normal licence, but it will be impossible for the trial judge to know that. That is a problem with the amendment. Is the trial judge the best person to decide whether an extended period of treatment is right for an offender? At that stage, the decision could be arbitrary. The parole board might be in a better position to know whether the extended period of treatment was necessary.
Some of the same problems arise over the 60 days-plus for community penalties. The critical issue is the lack of specialist facilities for sex offenders. We need more specialist facilities in the community. There are few in existence, and they are over-subscribed. The probation service runs groups for sex offenders, but it obviously needs enough people at any one time to form a group. Geographically it may be more difficult to form a group in a rural environment.
It is not clear exactly what the Government have in mind. Do they intend the provision to be used when a court has a particular treatment programme in view, or is it to be used more generally? Will something be tailor-made, or will there be a general prescription? The amendment merely refers to the length of contact. The accompanying press release from the Government referred to a more intensive programme and more frequent contact with the probation service. We want to know what exactly is in the Minister's mind.
The new provision has been introduced at relatively short notice. The National Association of Probation Officers first knew of it from press reports, yet in a letter dated 12 December to NAPO, the Home Secretary said:
I share your concern that the Bill contains important proposals which deserve the fullest consideration.
The proposals should have been subject to the normal consultation process, and it is a shame that they have not been. A specialist task is involved. The people who will have to deliver the service are probation officers. If there is to be a greater call on that scarce resource, planning is necessary, and the earlier consultation takes place, the better.
As the two homosexual offences of soliciting and indecency will remain in clause 25, it is likely that licences or community sentences will be extended. There is small fear that a bigoted bench would use that. Perhaps the Minister will note my reasoning and come back on that; we may be able to discuss it at greater length later.
We accept that the new clause and the amendment are necessary, and we welcome them, but we would be unhappy if, when it came to putting this part of the Bill into action, there was no move by the Government to make treatment a reality, in prison and out of prison. I am sure that this is not what the Government intend, but we would be very disappointed if they merely introduced a late amendment to the Bill to make themselves look good in the public eye without delivering the resources that are


necessary to deal with the root problem of sexual offenders. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that score.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), I am somewhat disappointed that the Government have not devoted more time to discussing the resources needed to make the new clause work rather than simply talking about the technicalities. I fear that throughout our ensuing debates will run the complaint that we are trying to deal with criminal justice and the reform of our prisons before we have had an opportunity to read the Woolf report and to study the recommendations that have arisen from the problems at Strangeways.
The Government's priorities are wrong. Rather than forcing through legislation at this stage, they should wait for the report. I am sure that it will deal with the treatment of sex offenders at Strangeways and with the substantial problems involved in keeping some of them separate from other prisoners. Such problems are bound to raise questions about resources, and about whether it is appropriate to house the two groups of prisoners in the same prison.
Many sex offenders lead a very restricted life in prison, not because of the nature of their offences but because of the attitude of other prisoners. Their treatment should start as soon as they go into prison and continue as they emerge into the community, but, as yet, I see very little evidence of a system to enable that to happen. The Government must think seriously about the resource implications and the achievement of continuity of treatment; at present, far too many sex offenders are locked up for long periods, while no attempt is made to enable them to come to terms with their crimes and to modify their behaviour so that their is little chance of their offending again.
I was a little concerned about the Minister's idea of how the mechanism will work as a pensioner approaches the end of his sentence. As the law stands, a probation officer will move from working with someone on an agreed basis as part of his parole conditions to a system of voluntary supervision. If a prisoner's treatment is to succeed, is not it far more important to persuade him to accept voluntary conditions than to make the conditions compulsory—especially at the end of his sentence, when it will be almost impossible for the probation officer to enforce such conditions? By the time the offender is taken back to court, major problems will have arisen.
I do not think it helpful to bring in arbitrary decision-making by probation officers, rather than concentrating on the court's decision; but that is simply a passing comment.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield that the trial judge may not be the most appropriate person to make decisions and that it is important to see how someone responds to the time that he spends in prison and to establish what is the most appropriate way to deal with him on his release at the time when he is released. At a time when he is overwhelmingly conscious of the behaviour that has resulted in his

conviction, the offender cannot possibly anticipate whether his behaviour will change as a result of the years that he will spend in prison.

Mr. John Patten: I am very happy to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Important issues such as who should make decisions about resources I shall leave until I am dealing with similar, although not identical, points. The hon. Member for Huddersfield is quite right that the number of sex crimes has increased. I realise, of course, that he is as careful as I am to attribute a proper proportion of the apparent rise to the welcome increase in the reporting of such crimes. People are now coming forward and reporting rape, indecent assault and domestic violence—of course, domestic violence is at the margin of sex crime—in a way that did not apply 10 or 15 years ago.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber want women and children to be encouraged to report such crimes, which hitherto have often been hidden, or submerged. It is much better to have the true crime picture than to suspect that things are going on but are not being reported. All sex crimes and attempted sex crimes should be reported, and with the welcome trend towards increased reporting the police and others have a better chance to get to grips with the problem when they have the full picture.
I welcome the general attitude of the hon. Member for Huddersfield to the new clause and the associated amendment. One or two organisations have already made their views known. At least one probation body—the Association of Chief Officers of Probation—yesterday made a statement welcoming what is being done. The probation service generally, at its different levels, is trying to develop integrated programmes to deal with sex offenders. A great deal of experimental work is going on. It is a mistake to think that all treatment of sex offenders has to be medical or neo-medical. Much of it is a question of simply getting people to face up to what they have done. I have visited probation areas such as Cambridgeshire which have very active programmes within which people are doing this tough, difficult work.
The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish asked where the money would come from. They agree that these are interesting ideas and there is broad Opposition support for them, for which I am grateful, but they want to know how implementing them will be paid for. In the autumn statement we announced that we intend, over the next three years, to employ more than 800 additional probation officers—men and women. That is the biggest-ever single injection of personnel into the service. By 1993–94 we shall see also increased public expenditure on the probation service—an increase of one quarter in real terms. It is from that very substantial, not to say huge, increase in resources that we hope to fund the new programmes.
Related to this is the important issue of sex offenders in prison, which was raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, and the equally important issue of what happens when they get out of prison and are in the care of the probation service. Is what is known in the trade as the through-care adequate? On the question of sex offenders, I refer to the excellent work being done in Grendon Underwood prison in Buckinghamshire. Treatment of various types—psychotherapy, counselling, aversion


therapy, and so on—is provided in about 60 of our prisons. I do not, of course, pretend that in all those prisons they are full-time activities.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that there is a very long list of prisoners waiting to be transferred to Grendon?

Mr. Patten: Yes, and it is a very competitive list. As Grendon is a therapeutic community, people are accepted only if the other prisoners there believe that they can be worked into the system. Hence, I believe, the comparative success of Grendon. As I said, 60 other prisons in England and Wales provide sex therapy courses of one sort or another—courses aimed at getting offenders to face up to their offending behaviour.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When I visited Grendon I saw that it provided a very useful programme—whether it still does I do not know—of plastic surgery for cauliflower ears, noses, and so on, and the removal of tattoos. That seems to have an enormous effect on prisoners of all types—sex offenders and others.

Mr. Patten: That is a very valuable point. Within the past 10 days, a number of people from Grendon Underwood have come to see me in the Home Office to discuss just that sort of work. I do not want to get into the jargon, but I have to say that, clearly, many sex offenders have two characteristics. First, very often they themselves were abused, either physically or sexually, when they were children. Secondly, many of them have very low self-esteem. That is not to say that they have not done bad things, but their problems must be taken into account when we try to persuade them not to do bad things in the future and to try to go straight. I hope that they will be helped by the provision of the new clause and the associated amendment.
The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Denton and Reddish asked whether it is right to leave it to the trial judge to decide. I think that it is right because the trial judge will be advised by the probation service with the new pre-sentence report that will be written to national standards within set periods of time. That will give the probation service the opportunity to say whether it thinks that someone will benefit from a period of extended supervision. I would not claim—nor would anyone in the probation service or the medical authorities involved—that there is a cure for sex offending. Some people tell me that it may never be cured in the way that some of us would like. However, it can be controlled by people being made to face up to the damage that they have done to others and to realise that victims have been involved.
I hope that with those points of clarification the House will accept the new clause and the associated amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

VARIATION AND DISCHARGE OF SUPERVISION ORDERS

'. For section 15 of the 1969 Act (variation and discharge of supervision orders) there shall be substituted the provisions set out in Schedule (Provisions substituted for sections 15 of 1969 Act).'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER

'Any person convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm on a police officer in the execution of his duty shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than three months, and shall not be released before he has served three months of his sentence.'.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I wish to declare an outside interest as the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce a mandatory minimum custodial sentence of three months for assaulting a police officer while in the execution of his duty and where such assault occasions actual bodily harm.
Another reason for the new clause is to draw the attention of the House and the Government to what is now a major problem facing the police in this country. Many of my hon. Friends have put their names to the new clause and they all, in one way or another, advise on and take an interest in police matters. The aim is to deter persons from assaulting the public servants we pay to protect us and every citizen in Britain.
The House may ask why it is necessary. There are now about 20,000 assaults on the police each year and, unhappily, the number is rising. As a result, many officers are unable to return to duty for weeks or even months. Some are permanently disabled and their injuries are so severe that they never return to duty. Some die from their injuries. That is truly shocking, and it seems clear that those who assault police officers are not deterred from doing so by the existing range of penalties imposed by British courts.
I shall give a few examples. In Lancashire, in 1989–90, there was a 38 per cent. increase in assaults on officers. Of three convictions, one involved a sentence of probation for 12 months and compensation of £50, and another was reduced to common assault and the case did not even justify a court hearing. In Northamptonshire during 1990, 208 police officers were assaulted out of a force strength of 1,141—almost 20 per cent.
I received a fax this afternoon from the secretary of the joint branch board of the Northamptonshire Police Federation. It said:
The Chief Constable and my Chairman are continually asking the Magistrates to impose severe sentences for this type of assault, and we fully support your attempt to make a mandatory prison sentence.
4.45 pm
In Avon and Somerset, in February 1991, an unemployed person who had been convicted walked free from court after a third conviction for assaulting the police. He was given a 15-month suspended gaol sentence after finishing a one-year sentence for offences which included an assault on the police. The judge is reported to have told him that a gaol sentence
would do nothing more than protect the police and the public.
If the report is accurate, that seems a rather strange comment.
I could go on reading a long list of convictions that have not incurred a custodial sentence, and where a fine has been imposed or perhaps a community service sentence. For example, in Nottinghamshire in December, there were two convictions. One involved a fine of £100 and another


involved 100 hours of community service and £20 compensation. The constable concerned is still on light duties and may have to undergo surgery. We are talking not about minor scuffles with the police in which a police officer is nudged or shoved but about offences involving actual bodily harm.
I know that many hon. Members read Police magazine, the journal of the Police Federation of England and Wales. Some hon. Members may have already seen today the tragic case of the late PC Robert Gladwell, whose name has been added to the roll of police officers killed by a criminal assault while in the execution of their duty.
PC Gladwell and a woman colleague were sent to the Plaza hotel in Queensway, Paddington, on 16 December to deal with a disturbance. The woman officer, Constable Sharon Hofland, was assaulted and sustained a fractured hand as well as being kicked in the stomach. Constable Gladwell attempted to protect her, and received a blow to the head. He suffered concussion and was taken to hospital. On returning to Harrow road police station he began to vomit. He returned to duty on 2 January this year but, two days later, he collapsed and was taken to the Royal Free hospital for emergency brain surgery. He died without recovering consciousness. A subsequent post mortem found that his death was attributable to assault.
S
Superintendent Don Edwardson of Harrow Road described PC Gladwell as a professional and conscientious police officer who always gave of his best. He was a former soldier who worked on bomb disposal in Ulster and in Germany. Only a month before his death, he and his wife, Gillian, had adopted a child. I take this opportunity to pay my respects to the memory of a fine officer, and I am sure that the House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to his widow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
It is not enough simply to express our sympathy, and his death in the line of duty must not be in vain. The Government must take action to make it clear that society and Parliament do not accept the fact that 20,000 such assaults can take place without a real and powerful attempt to deter them.
My constituency of Uxbridge is a law-abiding area but, even there, out of a force of 230 officers there was one case of grievous bodily harm, with eight cases of actual bodily harm and 22 simple assaults, during 1990. In Hayes and Harlington, which for policing purposes covers part of my constituency, 58 officers were assaulted on duty in 1990.
The police, who are often young men and women, are at much risk in patrolling the down-town areas of our towns and cities. The same can be said of police officers in country areas, who are frequently assaulted when, single-handedly, they have to deal with drunken rowdies after closing time.
When I first became parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation, I laboured under the delusion that the lot of a country police officer, as portrayed over the years, was a quiet one—that it involved little more than having a jug with the landlord now and again and keeping an eye on the boys who were involved in a bit of local scrumping. I quickly found that the reverse is true. In many villages and rural areas, only one or two police officers may be on duty, and the nearest help is probably 25 miles away. They must often deal with a bunch of rowdies who travel by coach to a pub or club in a large town but return to cause problems in their village. The difficulties and serious assaults that I have described are by no means confined to urban areas.
How different is sentencing practice today from in the past? I am told that, perhaps, 25 years ago, an assault occasioning actual bodily harm on a police officer would almost certainly have resulted in the offender going to prison, probably for at least six months. A chief superintendent whom I spoke to about a week ago told me of a magistrate in Edinburgh, whom he knew well when he was stationed there as a young constable, telling a defendant, "I will not have you assaulting our police—six months." That was not an untypical sentence. As a result, everyone in the community knew that a person who was convicted and sentenced had committed a serious offence. That person was not, thereafter, well regarded in the community in which he or she lived.
Today, when assaults are commonplace and incur only a fine or community service, the feeling among the police is that few of the convicted person's relatives, friends or employers are aware of the gravity of the offence or of the conviction. That must be stopped.
A further reason for the new clause is to demonstrate to the police, including those who have been seriously injured and the relatives and friends of those who have died, that hon. Members care and support police officers in the difficult and dangerous task on which they are engaged at our bidding. That is an important aspect of the new clause.
I invite hon. Members who may doubt what I am saying to ask any police officer on duty in the House whether they think that penalties for assaulting the police are sufficient to act as a real deterrent, or whether they feel that Parliament cares sufficiently about the dangers to which they and their fellow officers are exposed. Hon. Members will find that the answer to that question is no.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may say that we do not want to send more people to prison—a proposition with which most hon. Members will agree—but we are debating violent offences against those whose job it is to uphold the law. As the Home Secretary has made clear, violent sentences merit a custodial sentence. As Mr. Speaker Thomas used to remind the House from time to time, this is the High Court of Parliament. This High Court should decide today that it will not tolerate those who punch, kick, stab and slash police officers, or women officers having their hair torn from their scalps or their breasts beaten by someone who thinks that they can do so with impunity to resist arrest. It is time to call a halt.
It has been put to me by several people with whom I have discussed the problem that we do not have minimum penalties. I asked the Library to compare the position in Britain with that in other European Community countries. That is not an easy task, because unfortunately the only available documentation is dated June 1978. I would not be surprised if my right hon. Friend the Minister told me that the position has changed. According to a Home Office report entitled "Sentences of Imprisonment: A Review of Maximum Penalties", published by the Advisory Council on the Penal System, other western European countries, broadly speaking, operate a system that specifies a minimum and maximum penalty for each offence, within which judges are permitted fairly wide discretion.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: It is the same in some states of America.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) reminds me that the position in some American states is similar.
In Belgium, a minimum and maximum penalty is specified in the criminal code. The penalty for ordinary theft ranges from one month to five years. In Sweden, the minimum sentence is one month of imprisonment. In the Netherlands, the acceptance of the short prison sentence is even more marked—less than three months tends to be the norm—and the minimum sentence is one day of imprisonment. I quote those examples to show that the concept of a minimum custodial penalty is not novel. I am asking the House not to return to the days of transportation to the colonies but seriously to consider the position that obtains in other countries of the European Community, to which we pay such regard these days.
I should like to quote from a letter that I have just received by fax from the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Mr. Owen, to show that the argument that I am putting before the House is, I hope, balanced:
I much regret I am unable to support the amendment, for it is far too simplistic. Would someone go to prison for slapping a police officer or spitting at him? That would in my view be totally counter-productive.
My answer to Mr. Owen is no, I do not believe that someone would. The offence must be assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
Mr. Owen further says—it is important that the House should have regard to this—
Having said that, I am sure you will appreciate the very strong groundswell of concern over the number of police officers who are being assaulted and assaulted quite seriously. We have no protection save the Courts and it is to the Courts that we must look for that protection.
I have over the last several years publicly expressed my concern and pointed to the leniency shown by the Courts. A recent example of 26 officers assaulted over the Christmas period in my Force resulted in the Chairmen of the Magistrates' Courts in North Wales meeting to discuss the problem.
It is right that we should draw attention to the growing concerns of the police officer on the street. We need to be sure he will approach and tackle all those incidents which he finds. If he feels isolated, who knows what course of action he will take?—to the possible detriment of society.
Mr. Owen makes my point very well, and I agree very much with the sentiments that are expressed in that paragraph.
Although Mr. Owen has reservations about the new clause, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take them seriously, because they support my general proposition that it is not good enough that there should be 20,000 serious assaults on the police and that this House has a duty to ensure that the men and women who protect the law-abiding citizens of this country can go about their job as we would wish them to, in the knowledge and belief that an adequate deterrent is available to deal with those who assault them.
This matter requires urgent attention. It cannot be left for a couple more years or for another Criminal Justice Bill. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure me, the federated ranks of the police and ACPO that the Government will take action.

5 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I understand the purposes of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) in tabling the new clause. I welcome the opportunity that it gives to highlight the risks of serious assault faced by the police force and to highlight a growing

problem. Parliament is anxious about this matter, and the hon. Gentleman was right to provide an opportunity for this debate.
I am afraid that it is not possible for me to concur with the view of the hon. Member for Uxbridge that we should accept the new clause. He made a big assumption, the force of which is not easy to demonstrate—that the proposed minimum mandatory prison sentence will act as a deterrent. There is a risk that the new clause will act in precisely the opposite direction. People who are stopped by the police want to avoid detention or being taken into custody. If a prison sentence were likely, a person stopped by the police would be likely to go to greater lengths to avoid being taken into custody and the risk of assault faced by the police would be even greater than it is. That would be counterproductive.
I would move from that view if the hon. Member for Uxbridge produced evidence to rebut it. The hon. Gentleman did not inform the House of the views of the Magistrates Association, although he informed us of the powerful view of the Association of Chief Police Officers that the approach of the new clause to this difficult problem was too simple. I believe that it is, indeed, too simple. The circumstances in which assaults causing actual bodily harm occur can vary considerably, as can the degree of culpability and of mens rea associated with such assaults. Imposing a mandatory minimum sentence would fail to take account of those variations.
The House sympathised with the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the tragic case of Police Constable Gladwell. A murder charge may be appropriate if the offender is discovered and brought to trial, but I am not sure that that case is relevant to the new clause. The hon. Gentleman says that Parliament believes that violent crime should result in severe penalties, but most people are aware of the limitations of incarceration as a deterrent. Whether imprisonment prevents crimes has increasingly been called into question. The hon. Gentleman did not discharge the burden of proof in explaining why we should depart from the normal practice of not having minimum penalties.
I should be bound to vote against the new clause if it were forced to a vote. The new clause would damage the cause that the hon. Member for Uxbridge understandably espouses—the provision of greater protection for the police. It would be more likely to lead to greater violence by those resisting arrest, which would constitute an additional threat from which the police would have to be protected.

Sir Bernard Braine: I intervene briefly to support the new clause so ably and convincingly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). He deployed a powerful case for having additional penalties which are an effective deterrent.
I, too, must declare an interest. I have been the adviser to the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, the senior officers in the field, for—I hesitate to say—some 25 years. I have got to know the police well. I respect and admire them. They deserve much more than they get, given their vital task. They have always had a difficult task. Being a police officer is difficult at any time, but never more so than today when the police have to cope with a rising tide of crime, especially violent crime. They


are the thin blue line standing between the public and criminals who do not hesitate to use violence to achieve their ends and to maim and sometimes kill.
The trend is horrifying. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge gave the House some examples. Let us consider the most savage crime—murder. Five years before the abolition of capital punishment, there were 290 murders per year on average. That is a frightening figure, but in the past five years there have been 647 murders a year on average. In the 25 years before abolition, 14 police officers were murdered in the course of their duty; in the same period since abolition, 53 have been murdered—four times as many.
I have been in the House for more than 40 years. During that time I have seen a steady deterioration in public behaviour and an increase in criminality of all kinds. It behoves us to stop now and again and to ask ourselves whether we are doing sufficient to reinforce and to protect the thin blue line. If the public are to be protected effectively—that is, after all, the task of the police—the thin blue line needs to be reinforced. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge could have told the House, there are several ways in which that can be done. For example, we could recruit more officers and double the police force—assuming that, in the conditions of today, young men and particularly young married men would wish to join the service. We could increase the number of police officers, or if that proved difficult, we could arm the police. [Interruption.] There is no need for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge to intervene. I would never favour such a move, except that if nothing is done to give effective protection to police officers it will happen, and the public will support it.

Mr. Maclennan: Has the right hon. Gentleman studied evidence in the United States, where police forces are armed, and has he considered whether the situation there is safer for the police? My impression—it is no more than that—is that proportionately more police officers are killed in those circumstances.

Sir Bernard Braine: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am talking about crime and policing in this country. When I first entered politics we proudly claimed that we had the finest police force in the world—the constable armed by the public, by which I mean not physically armed but mandated by the public to protect them. When I was a youngster, a police constable did not need any weapons—he was a respected figure—but I have seen the respect deteriorate, not because the quality of the police has changed but because society has deteriorated.
If we do not face up to that issue, we shall need to consider certain alternatives. The first would be to recruit more police officers. I am asking the House to consider whether young married men with children, knowing what happens on our streets, will rush to join the police force. The second alternative—

Mr. Peter Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Bernard Braine: I promised to make a brief speech, and I want to keep it brief.

Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the point that he has just made?

Sir Bernard Braine: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Archer: Twice now the right hon. Gentleman has queried whether recruits are prepared to join the police. Is he aware that I fully support his view that we need more police officers, but in the biggest police force outside the Metropolitan area—the West Midlands police—the limiting factor is not the number of recruits who are prepared to apply but the number on the strength that the Home Office is prepared to authorise?

Sir Bernard Braine: Perhaps I did not make my meaning as clear as I should have done. With the new clause we are asking for action to be taken by the Government to ensure that there is a deterrent to assaulting a police officer. That is all that we are asking. If the warning that my hon. Friend described in detail is not heeded, we shall need to consider other means. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may be right, but if the trend continues and more police officers are murdered in the course of their duties, or injured and forced to retire from the police force through injury or ill health, it will become more difficult to recruit. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot grasp that, he cannot grasp anything. I am talking about trends, and I make this appeal to the House because the trends that we have been witnessing are serious and worrying. That is the purpose of my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
The idea of arming the police is politically objectionable in present circumstances. I have no desire to emulate the example of the United States. I want a police constable to continue to be an ordinary citizen who is armed by the community to preserve law and order—that is a wonderful, noble tradition and I want to preserve it—but if the idea of arming the police is politically objectionable, the only remedy is some kind of deterrent to make the men of violence think twice before attacking police officers. That is what the new clause would do.
5.15 pm
It is necessary to issue a warning. Unless Parliament shows itself to be concerned to protect the police—to protect the protectors of the public—recruitment will fall. I have been in close touch with police matters for many years. There is no dearth of young men who would like to serve in the police. Indeed, I have a grandson who, when he comes out of the Army, intends to join the police. He is most anxious to join and I am proud of him. But if we ignore the warning, recruitment will fall. I speak with some knowledge of the police and their views. We have no right to show indifference to the increasing dangers faced by police officers. For that reason, I am happy to support the new clause.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I am grateful to be called at this stage, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for being late, but I was detained by duties in another part of the House.
I must acquaint the House with my interest as a parliamentary adviser to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Although the Bill does not apply directly to Northern Ireland, there will subsequently be a direct knock-on effect in that part of the United Kingdom. My concern is not exclusively with police in Northern Ireland; it is with all


policemen in the United Kingdom. It is 33 years since I, as a young man just out of college, became a special constable, so I have some experience of policing from the coal face.
Throughout the years, I have seen at first hand the increasingly difficult job that our police forces have in dealing with the public. The vast majority of the public support our police forces in an increasingly passive manner. But more and more members of the public are prepared to confront the police and to assault them when there is an opportunity to do so. If we are not careful, we shall soon find police officers believing themselves to be totally vulnerable and that there is little public sympathy for them in carrying out their difficult job. The actions and behaviour of constabularies throughout the country are being questioned more and more. Their job is coming under more and more public scrutiny. It is, therefore, illogical that we expect the maintenance of the highest standards of behaviour from the police service, but that as a nation we do not give its officers every possible protection.
There will always be those who, perhaps as part of a football crowd or a group coming out of a public house late in the evening, may confront a policeman or policemen and even assault an officer, and who, the following day, will regret those actions. From what I have heard from Opposition Members so far, there may be those in the House who think that a mandatory three-month sentence is a draconian measure. However, we must remember that the minor incidents of people assaulting police officers in the circumstances that I have just described can lead to even more serious assaults or ultimately to an assault that could leave a policeman with a permanent injury or worse.
Policing is a partnership between the public and those upon whom we call to serve the public by maintaining law and order. If we then require the utmost discretion from our policemen and women, we must demonstrate to them not only that the public, but that we who represent the public in this House, care about them. We can do that only if we demonstrate as firmly as possible that we are not prepared to see them violently interfered with.
Therefore, I ask all those who care about the police service to ensure that we do not ask its officers to do the job under the impression that they must do it alone. They must be assured that every hon. Member, representing the community at large, is fully behind them and wants to provide them with the best possible protection.
The alternative was spelt out by the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine): to arm our police service and to provide its officers with other means of protecting themselves. None of us wishes that. I have experience of the necessity of arming the police service in Northern Ireland and no one wants that to spread throughout the United Kingdom.
The answer is clear. The police must have the full protection of the law in just the same way as the public expect to have the full protection of the law. The police are not set apart from the community; they are part of the community. For that reason, I have pleasure in supporting the new clause.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If any hon. Member doubted the danger to police officers, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who represents so well the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland, could

give the real picture. However, many of us have pictures from our own constituencies. I recently had the experience of going out with the police in Southend when they had to deal with a crowd of drunks on a bus. There was also a frightening incident involving an assault on a police officer outside my own home at 4 o'clock in the morning.
The crucial thing about which I hope the Government will think is that we are not being successful in deterring crime. No Government have probably tried so hard to reduce the crime figures. We have increased the number of police officers. We have done everything that one could reasonably do, but the plain fact is that we are not succeeding. If the present crime figures had occurred under a Labour Government, I fancy that Conservative Members would have been jumping up and down, making a great deal of noise. We cannot condemn the Government for the figures, but I hope that they accept that they have not been successful in deterring crime.
The easiest way of discovering the reason for that lack of success would be to take a public opinion poll of young people. We could ask one of the splendid organisations that constantly carries out such inquiries to ask young people, "What do you think would happen to you if you committed a certain crime?" Young people are misguided because the popular newspapers constantly devote headlines to judges who give a sentence of a bag of sweeties to someone who has committed a dreadful crime. Such headlines are far from being representative of what happens in courts because some stiff sentences are applied. However, the Government are probably not fully aware of the extent to which young people are under the impression that not much would happen to somebody who committed a crime, especially if it was a first offence. In Glasgow, many youngsters seem to think that if they say that they are joining a youth club, not much will happen on a first appearance in court. The Government might be alarmed at the answers that they would get if they were to ask young people that question. One of the serious problems facing society today is that those beliefs about what happens in court to young people are leading to a sharp increase in crime; they are certainly not deterring it.
Although this debate relates primarily to the police, I hope that the Government will consider the principle of a mandatory statutory sentence. In my opinion, that would lead not to more people going to prison, but to fewer people in prison because it would deter crime. If people knew that the consequence of a particular crime was a mandatory sentence, I am convinced that the numbers of people committing those crimes would fall sharply.
People who doubt that may ask, "Where is the evidence?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine), who has represented that constituency so well for so many years, gave a hint of the evidence. I challenge those who disagree to say why the murder figures did not rise during the 20 years from 1945 to 1965 when we had the only mandatory sentence—capital punishment—yet all other crimes more than doubled. Of course, some people might say that there were special reasons for those murder figures, but we must ask why they did not rise at all when general crime was on the increase. There is no doubt that many people knew that a dreadful deterrent could be applied if they carried or used a gun. Since the abolition of capital punishment, we have not only had the huge rise in the incidence of murder to


which my right hon. Friend referred, but there have been even more dramatic rises in crimes involving the use of firearms and, perhaps more importantly, in all crime.
Several hon. Members take my view that the only way to curb crime and stop people going to prison is to have a mandatory sentence so that people know that if they are found guilty of shoplifting, of robbing someone's house or of assault, mandatory sentences will be applied. Judges could be given special powers to depart from such sentences if they thought that there were particular circumstances relevant to that case. If we tried it, we might succeed in deterring crime—[Interruption.] It is not a matter of fun. I see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr Patten), is throwing up his hands as the argument advances——

Mr. John Patten: Not at my hon. Friend.

Mr. Taylor: I apologise. My right hon. Friend was making a gesture at another hon. Member who had said something else. I take it all back and wholly withdraw the implication of what I said.
If my right hon. Friend the Minister does not feel that we should try out the proposal in the new clause, will he please think about the problem of the rising crime figures? We could make many speeches about it. It causes terrible alarm among many people that crime is rising so quickly.
I accept that the Government have done many things. They have increased the number of officers. They have increased pay. They have done everything that one could expect to deter crime. We have even tried in our own narrow way to improve the living standards of the average family. But we are losing the battle at what seems to be an accelerating rate.
I appeal to the Government to consider the principle of the mandatory sentence. The evidence is available that it would work. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) suggests that we should try mandatory sentences, not for all crime but for assaults on the police. Of course, we have an obligation to treat policemen in a special way. They are the chaps who have to face the dreadful problems of crime. I have seen the problems that they have, as have other hon. Members.

Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend is on to an extremely important and interesting point when he directs the attention of the House to who is responsible for stopping crime. I have paid great attention to my hon. Friend's speech. Is he aware of a survey published just before Christmas which was commissioned by the Home Office? It showed that a relatively small number of people in Britain pointed the finger at the Government or the police and said that they should prevent crime. The overwhelming majority—53 per cent. of those asked—pointed the finger at the family and said that it was in the front line in preventing crime and stopping criminality.

Mr. Taylor: I am delighted that the Home Office is carrying out surveys. That is a step forward. It is good news. I accept that family breakdown or problems such as increased drinking may be factors which lead to a general increase in crime. The Government may be innocent. They may have been wrongly attacked all along. The Minister

should receive a medal and I should be glad to give him one if it would reassure Ministers that I am making the serious point that we are not succeeding in reducing crime. There is evidence that mandatory sentences would reduce crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge suggests that we should try a mandatory sentence for assaulting police officers. There are abundant reasons why we should make police officers a special group. They justify special attention because they do a special job. Let us try a mandatory sentence. If it does not work, people like me and others who have argued for it will have nothing much to say. But I believe that it would deter crime.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Minister, now that the Home Office has started to conduct surveys—I wish the Government good luck in that—to ask young people what they believe would happen if they were found guilty of a crime. If he does, I believe that he will find overwhelming evidence that standard mandatory sentences, which let young and older people know that if they commit a certain crime they will receive a certain sentence, would deter crime.

Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend has made a positive suggestion that our next survey should include questions about what young people believe would happen to them if they were found guilty in court. I shall do exactly as he suggests.

Mr. Taylor: That is a massive step forward. I have been greatly impressed by the active and positive way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister has approached his duties. I honestly believe that if he takes up my suggestion, he will find interesting information. Once that information is available, it might be possible to introduce mandatory sentences.
I assure my right hon. Friend the Minister—and I am sure that he accepts—that the object of the new clause is not to put more people in prison or to hammer people for assaulting police officers, but to attempt to stop crime and stop youngsters and others getting into trouble. My right hon. Friend has already made a major advance by promising to carry out the survey that I suggested. Let us hope that that and other advances will allow us to begin to tackle and overcome the crime problem with the great zeal and enthusiasm that my right hon. Friend the Minister has shown in his approach to this serious problem.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I accept that, by tabling his new clause, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has highlighted a problem. But his solution to the problem is not appropriate. I hope that at the end of the debate, which should be useful in drawing people's attention to the problem, he will withdraw his new clause.
Everyone should be worried about the loss of public esteem for the police and the damage done to individual policemen. It is important that as a society we restore public esteem for policemen so that there are fewer assaults on them and they are shown more respect by the general public. It is especially important that the general public come to the assistance of the police automatically and without question when the police need them. One of the saddest features of many cases in recent years has been the lack of assistance from the public to uniformed policemen.
I add to the hon. Gentleman's list of the problems of the police the growing trend for criminals to use dogs to further or protect their crimes. It is an extremely harrowing business for a police officer to attempt to


apprehend someone who has with him one of the more vicious dogs such as the pit bull terrier, the rottweiler or the German shepherd, or to enter a house where such a dog is present. It takes a great deal of nerve for a police officer to carry out his duty when he knows that an individual has such a dog with him or on his premises. There is also considerable anxiety among police officers about the increasing use of firearms.
I accept that there is a problem of the police being attacked. One need only consider the amount of time that police officers have off work to recover from assaults to realise that violence against the police is a major problem. The problem is not only the pain and suffering of the police officer but the loss of a highly qualified officer from work.
The problem is not recruitment. The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) did not have a valid point when he said that recruitment was a problem. The problem is rather different. It is the loss of good police officers to the service as a result of physical damage which results in their taking early retirement. There is also the problem of fear. Not many police officers are willing to admit that they are frightened by their job, but there is much evidence that their spouses are frightened and fear for their safety. That may lead policemen to look for an alternative job. There is a problem of people leaving the police service early when a great deal of money has been spent on training them and they are just beginning to become skilful officers.
I accept that there is a problem, but the idea that it can be solved by a mandatory three-month sentence is ludicrous. Some serious assaults have been mentioned. It is a pretty sick society which believes that three months is a long enough sentence for such assaults.

Mr. Shersby: I said that three months would be a minimum sentence. Anyone who assaulted a police officer and occasioned actual bodily harm would be given a sentence of at least three months. There is nothing to prevent a judge or magistrate from imposing a much longer sentence.

Mr. Bennett: I understand that, but we are dealing with the psychology of crime. We must get it across to people that if they commit a serious assault they will be given a serious prison sentence. It does not seem to me that a three-month sentence would fulfil that psychological role.
I suggest that the essential problem is that, in far too many assaults, the culprit is not caught. Ensuring that people are caught is the most effective way of stopping crime. I should have been much happier if the hon. Gentleman had put more emphasis in his new clause on making sure that people were caught. If we make it almost a certainty that people will be caught, it will be a deterrent.

Mr. Maginnis: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but it shows a danger into which we have fallen. We constantly talk about catching criminals and terrorists. The real secret is deterrence. We must deter the potential criminal and terrorist. The new clause is designed simply to prevent those who begin at the lowest level to assault policemen from doing so. It is intended to be a deterrent.

Mr. Bennett: I firmly believe that the best deterrent is the likelihood of being caught. It is important that an offence is followed by punishment, but I do not believe

that many people would commit a crime if they knew for certain that they would be caught. Catching the culprit is the most important deterrent.
I accept that we have more policemen in our forces, but have we got more of them out on the beat performing their duties? From talking to policemen in Greater Manchester, I know that one of their worries is that far too many of them are not out on the streets undertaking police work because they are tied up with work in the police station. They argue that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has increased their paperwork. I believe that most of that paperwork is necessary, but in Greater Manchester too many police officers are using typewriters—often they type with only one or two fingers—to prepare material and reports when that work should be done by people trained for the job. We could do much more to ensure that more policemen are out on the streets, but that comes down to resources.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge did not establish the essential argument that many people have been caught and convicted of assaults and given trivial sentences. I do not believe that that case can be established. There is a danger in giving new powers to policemen, whether uniformed or not. In my constituency I know of a sad case of someone who was convicted of assaulting a police officer, but because that officer was in plain clothes the person convicted was not aware of his identity and thought that the officer was carrying out an assault. That problem must be resolved. The new clause states that a person should be convicted of assault
on a police officer in the execution of his duty".
When is a police officer off duty? It is important to consider that.
The most important thing to ensure is that the public go to the aid of a police officer. The central problem with the new clause is that it seeks special treatment for police officers. Let us assume that a police officer is being attacked and I, as a member of the public, go to his assistance. If the police officer ended up with his arm broken, the person responsible would, under the new clause, be guaranteed to receive a three-month sentence at least. If my arm was broken in assisting that police officer, there would be no guarantee of such a punishment. If one wants to encourage the public to go to the assistance of police officers one must ensure that all receive even treatment. We must not make a special case for police officers.
Police officers do a difficult job and the law should provide them with the same protection as the rest of us. When people carry out serious and dangerous assaults, they should expect to be caught and the courts should then give them an appropriate sentence.
I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will withdraw the new clause. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us what the Home Office intends to do to ensure that more police officers walk the streets to provide protection for the public. I hope that he will also say what protection will be given to police officers in the course of their duty, as I have every sympathy for a police officer who is on his own with little chance of summoning assistance.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) introduced his excellent new clause he cited figures relating to attacks on


police officers in Lancashire. He said that in 1990 the number of such assaults had risen by 38 per cent.; but there is more to it than that.
Before 1989 no record was kept in Lancashire of the number of policemen and policewomen assaulted. In 1989, when those figures were first collated, 277 officers received injuries in the course of their duty. Unfortunately, as we are unaware of the low number of attacks before 1989 we cannot know how big an increase this is, but now we are reaching figures that are increasingly horrific.
Police officers in our part of the world are fairly tough. They do not consider that they have been assaulted if they end up struggling in the gutter with a drunk. They regard that quite good humouredly and deal with it in an appropriate manner. They do not consider that they have been assaulted if they are hit by a mentally disturbed person, since Lancaster has always been a centre for the treatment of mental illness in that part of the north-west. The police regard their help in dealing with such unfortunate cases as part of their normal duties. In common with all other police officers, they do not regard themselves as assaulted if they try to intervene, perhaps rashly, in a dispute between husband and wife.
The figures recorded in Lancashire relate to deliberate attacks on serving officers. We know only too well that the public and the police are supposed to react to trouble differently. The public are advised to retreat from any bother, although sometimes brave members of the public do not heed such advice, but policemen must go in, come what may. The recent unfortunate accidents in the tube, which I accept have nothing to do with assaults on police officers, show that police officers have to go to the heart of things—it is their duty to go forward, not back.
5.45 pm
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that a mandatory sentence would have a salutary effect on the public. People would then know that if they deliberately laid a finger on a police officer they would go to prison and that is that.

Mr. Shersby: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that I received a letter today from the secretary of the Lancashire joint branch board of the Police Federation. He said:
Youths from Blackpool with many previous convictions escaped from a police van, assaulting police officers, and escaped from the Crown Court by jumping from the Dock. Eventually received community service order at Crown Court
Does my hon. Friend believe that that is an adequate deterrent?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is inadequate. If people received a mandatory sentence for such an offence we would not witness an increase in the number of people incarcerated in prison—rather those numbers would reduce because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has already said, people would know that if they attacked a police officer they would go to prison, and therefore they would not do it.

Mr. John Greenway: As the House knows, I was once a policeman. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) referred to his grandson

and my eldest son is at present working in the recruitment office of one of our constabularies during his year out from his degree course. I hope that, when he has completed his degree, he will take up a career in the police.
Assaults on police officers are a serious problem, as the evidence cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) makes clear. Something must be done.
The Bill has established some new powers, and I hope that they will go some way towards doing something about rowdy behaviour in our high streets, particularly during the weekend, late at night. We hope and expect that the courts will use the new power for curfew orders and electronic tagging. I also hope that the courts will take seriously the new powers relating to parental responsibilities and that community sentences will not be a soft option, but will be extremely tough.
Much as I believe that anyone who seriously assaults a police officer should go to prison, we must consider whether the new clause is appropriate. There is some difficulty in defining actual bodily harm.
I know that the House likes to listen to my brief stories from my time as a police officer. I was once kicked extremely violently in a very uncomfortable place——

Mr. Shersby: In Soho?

Mr. Greenway: No, it was in the foyer of one of the most distinguished luxury hotels in the west end. I was kicked in a very uncomfortable place. I assure the House that that definitely occasioned actual bodily harm—certainly it was extremely painful. However, the person who did it was a distinguished Scottish teacher, in a dinner jacket, who was blind drunk. Are we saying that that man should automatically go to prison for three months? I suffered other assaults as a policeman 20 or so years ago, and I agree entirely with what my right hon. and hon. Friends said: the violence that today's police force has to face is considerably greater than it was in my time in the 1960s.

Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend saying that a crime of assault or of any other nature committed when drunk should not be an offence?

Mr. Greenway: No, I am saying that when people are brought before a court and convicted of an offence, we must expect the court to take notice of their entire circumstances, not just the fact that they have committed an offence. There should be no absolute or mandatory sentence imposed on them. The courts require flexibility.
When the Select Committee on Home Affairs conducted an inquiry into the Crown prosecution service last year, it became clear that the problem of assaults on police officers, and the way in which they are prosecuted in our courts, was of much concern to the police service. In particular, there is criticism that the Crown prosecution service may charge for a mere assault on the police, which is only triable summarily in a magistrates court, rather than charging for section 47 or section 18 offences—actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm—which are triable in a Crown court.
I believe that all hon. Members will expect that the vast majority of defendants in that position should be sent to prison. I hope that, if nothing else comes out of today's helpful debate, we can send a message to the effect that the House expects our courts to use their powers.
Much as I would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and new clause 1, as he supported my new clause some two months ago, we do not know how big a problem this is. We do not know how many police officers are being seriously assaulted and suffering serious injuries. We do not know how many of the attackers are not being sent to prison. We do not know how many people who commit assaults are being charged with too minor an offence in the first instance.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: My hon. Friend said that we do not know how many assaults there are, but we do. The figure has been given in today's debate; concrete and well-documented figures have been produced. In the past year, there have been more than 20,000 assaults.

Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend says that I asked how many assaults there had been. With respect, that is not what I asked. I asked how many cases there had been of police officers who had been seriously assaulted, their assailants found guilty before a court of this country, whether a magistrates court or Crown court, but were not sent to prison for at least three months. That is what we want to know.
This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Minister has already greatly helped the House and the cause of protecting our police force by responding to a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) for a survey of young people's attitudes towards what happens if someone is arrested, charged with a crime and found guilty. The Home Office, in collaboration with the Association of Chief Police Officers, must undertake an inquiry into the sentencing by the courts, as well as the prosecuting through the Crown prosecution service, of cases of assault on police officers, so that the House can consider the matter with all the available information and make a judgment.
I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed in the letter received from the president of ACPO, David Owen, the chief constable of north Wales. Sadly, we cannot put the new clause on the statute book, but through today's debate we can send a message to the courts that the House and the public expect them to be tough in sentencing people who assault our police officers. Something more needs to be done.

Dr. Blackburn: As the House will expect, as an act of courtesy to the House I shall declare my interest. For the past 10 years, I have been parliamentary adviser to the National Association of Retired Police Officers. In addition, I declare an interest as a former serving police officer. However, the greatest mandate I have to speak on the new clause is that, for more than a century, members of my family have served in the police force. There are currently three members of my family serving with the Merseyside police.
The new clause has the full and unqualified support of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) who, due to parliamentary duties, cannot be present for today's debate.
The House has a solemn responsibility to defend the police service, and the men and women in it. Tonight, every serving police officer in this country will despair at the speech made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), which was appalling in its

content. It failed to defend the police and show them that the House has confidence in them as they perform their duties.
The new clause will be supported by all reasonable and responsible people of good will who are prepared to associate themselves with the police service. Many speeches we have heard today are testimony to the support given to the police service. I am horrified when I think of what would happen if the day dawned when the House did not give a vote of confidence in, and salute, the fine men and women of our police service.
By definition, a police officer is a citizen. It is important to note that he is part of a community—the man who lives down the road. We all know him and his family. He is locally appointed, which is why we have 47 police forces in the country. However—this is important—he acts under the authority of the Crown, which is given to him by the House. His role is the maintenance of peace and the prosecution of offenders against the law. The task facing us today is to cloak the police service with the protection of the law. We have a solemn responsibility to do that, and we must exercise it today.
What will Parliament's response be to the pleas by serving police officers through those right hon. and hon. Members who have been called to speak in the debate? I hope, cry and pray that we shall have a positive response from the Minister of State, and that he will salute the men and women of the police service. However, more important than words are actions. We must make positive moves, particularly in response to new clause 1, of which I am delighted to be a signatory.
The House has always been generous to me. I was a serving police officer for 15 years. During that time I was wounded twice and assaulted five times. As a result of that experience, I can do nothing else but to support the new clause.
I take issue with the idea that the deterrent is not the sentence but the arrest. I have seen many culprits arrested, and they have never been deterred by that. When they have appeared before the courts, they have not been given sentences that could be construed as a deterrent either. I know of occasions when police officers have been caused bodily harm in the execution of their duties and when the offender has also been charged with causing damage to police uniforms—and magistrates have imposed heavier sentences for the damage to the uniforms than for the damage to the police officers. Those are the hard facts of life for the men and women of the police service.
6 pm
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said that the biggest police force apart from the Metropolitan police was the West Midlands police force. Not so. The biggest police service apart from the Metropolitan police is the Greater Manchester police force. My constituency is under the protection of the West Midlands police, however. I should like to give the House a few details about that police force, which is headed by Chief Constable Ronald Hadfield.
The last published figures—I take no pleasure in them—in the annual report of the chief constable revealed that two police officers in the west midlands were murdered in the execution of their duty—one shot in a bank raid, the other stabbed to death in the centre of Birmingham. No words of mine could ever convey my strong desire to


ensure that this House affords the men and women who daily risk their lives because of the responsibilities that we have given them the protection that they need.
Last year in the west midlands, 1,060 police officers were wounded in the execution of their duties. I was pleased to hear someone mention money and the training of police officers, and the subsequent problems when they are assaulted. The 1,060 police officers wounded in the west midlands lost 7,000 working days because of their injuries. Worse still, many young men and women found themselves, perhaps in the middle of promising careers, before medical boards being discharged from the police service on medical grounds because of the assaults on them. This House has a responsibility to protect the fine men and women of the police service and to do that by supporting new clause 1. I wish it godspeed on behalf of every serving police officer.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: It is lonely speaking as a Conservative Member and not having been a serving police officer, although on reflection I seem to recall that my wife's grandfather was the chief constable of Northumberland. It is also fairly miserable following my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), who condemned anyone who had doubts about the new clause as not being a reasonable person or a person of good will. I hope that he will not ascribe those defects to me. He and I have known each other for a long time and we are great friends.
Like all other hon. Members who have spoken with great passion on this subject, I am concerned about the safety of police officers. Those who have been here longest will know that I have spoken for the restoration of capital punishment for the murder of police officers—as a great protection—for many years. I have nearly 30 years of practice in the criminal courts and I know from experience longer than that of most hon. Members—except, perhaps, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) who was a serving police officer—about the bravery and courage of our police force.
Nevertheless, I have doubts about the new clause. I do not like minimum sentences. They reduce the discretion of the courts, and all who practise in or know anything about the courts realise that human life spans an enormous width and that there are many degrees of blameworthiness. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale told us of his experience with an intoxicated reveller who attacked him in his foyer—[Laughter.] I should perhaps have said in the foyer.
Once we go down the slippery slope of minimum sentences, where should we stop? I know that we have one for murder, but that was a quid pro quo for abolishing capital punishment and there were special reasons for it; when this Bill is considered in the other place it may be attacked for doing nothing about the abolition of that statutory sentence. Why should not we have minimum sentences for child abuse, rape, pornographic offences, perversions, buggery or torture? Why not for blackmail—or even for theft of the royal mail? The only way to ensure that the mail is always delivered is to give out stiff sentences to postmen or anyone else who interferes with it. That is done in the United States of America.
Speeches calling for minimum sentences have always been resisted over the years. Governments have resisted

the idea of going down this slippery slope because if one case is allowed as an exception it becomes difficult to refuse other cases——

Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend said that there was a minimum sentence for murder, but my understanding is that life sentences can mean anything at all, depending on the views of the Home Secretary of the day. Some life sentences are served in six months.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend and I have common cause in that campaign and I agree with him; nevertheless, the sentence is statutory. Since my hon. Friend has provoked me, I must point out that if we imposed a minimum sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm to a police officer, resulting in offenders being sentenced to at least three months' imprisonment, it would not be the courts that decided what the sentence should be: the prosecuting authority or the police would decide that a type of offender should not go to prison for three months and would therefore charge him with, say, assaulting a policeman in the execution of his duty even though there had been assault occasioning actual bodily harm. That would take us further down the road to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) objects—that of administrative sentencing. That is as undesirable as minimum sentencing, and for the same reason. It removes the power of the judiciary to assess the appropriate sentence for the circumstances.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. and learned Friend has enormous experience of the courts and I follow his line of argument up to a point, but what we are concerned with is how to prevent assaults on police officers. We are concerned with preventing violent crime. How would he prevent the assaults on police officers that the House wholly deplores?

Mr. Lawrence: If one gives the courts flexibility of sentencing, in an appropriate case they may give nine, 12 or 18 months or even three years for an assault occasioning actual bodily harm to a police officer.
I left the Chamber for a moment to fetch from the Library the "Current Sentencing Practice", because I should not like my hon. Friends to think that no guidance was given to the judiciary. Unfortunately, someone has stolen it. The stealing of law books from the House of Commons Library would be my first choice for a minimum sentence.

Mr. Tim Janman: May I suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that the point at which we stop on minimum sentencing is embodied in my new clause 5? It is not the judiciary who are elected to the House to represent the concerns of the British people about crime and the need to give greater protection to the "thin blue line", as my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) said. Hon. Members do that job. As there is still a great deal of flexibility for the courts if we set a minimum as well as a maximum sentence, I do not understand why my hon. and learned Friend has such an objection to the elected representatives of the people seeking to insert, for various categories of crime of which this may be one, not only a maximum but a minimum sentence. There would be a good deal of flexibility between those extremes.

Mr. Lawrence: My answer to that point is the entire speech that I am making. I do not think that Parliament should set minimum sentences, for the reasons that I am trying to give.
Returning to the point that I was making before my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) intervened, I was going to bring into the Chamber "Current Sentencing Practice", which contains several pages of guidelines to Crown court recorders, High Court judges and anybody else in the process of sentencing about what to do in the case of an assault on a police officer in the execution of his duty or an assault occasioning actual bodily harm. I cannot remember word for word what their lordships have said in the higher courts—I shall be corrected by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) or by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—but my recollection is that it is that assaults on the police are so serious, and it is so important that we should defend the police, that it must hardly ever be appropriate not to send the offender to prison. Therefore, only very occasionally should those who commit assaults occasioning actual bodily harm on police officers not be sent to prison, and the reasons for not sentencing them to prison must be weighty.
With all my regard for my hon. Friends, for their depth of feeling and for their passionate support, which is totally justified, of police officers, I do not think that the police officers themselves would, in quiet, considered moments, consider that we should go down the slippery slope of minimum sentences, for the reasons that I have given. Strong emotion is one thing; cool thought is another. I am sure that most of the people who sit or spend time in our courts will want us to consider long and carefully before we go down that slope or support this new clause. If statistics were to show that police officers were inadequately protected, I would change my mind, but I do not think that they do. Until they do, we should continue not to have a minimum sentence.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies he will take into consideration the views that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale have expressed.

Mr. Sheerman: This has been a most interesting debate. Uncharacteristically, across the party divide, I feel myself drawn warmly to some of the arguments by hon. Gentlemen with whom I do not often agree. I think particularly of debates on capital punishment and the arguments that I usually hear from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). On this occasion, however, I find his arguments convincing.
Anyone who has listened carefully to the debate, as I have, senses that it is a feeling of frustration which has led to this new clause. I can understand that frustration. When crime rates have been soaring and when we do not seem to know what to do about them, there is a feeling that almost anything must be tried. The motives behind the amendment may be quite pure, and they were passionately put by the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). I understood the passion and frustration in the amendment which bears his name, but as

a sensible and rational response to the problems of rising crime and attacks on the police, the amendment will not work.
Opposition Members take these things extremely seriously. We have been working very hard, looking at the whole way in which policing is carried out, and we feel. with great respect, that we need a far more fundamental evaluation of our present position on law and order and effective policing. It is high time—the debate on this amendment demonstrates it—that we had a thorough look at policing in the late 20th century.
I agree with the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, David Owen, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and other hon. Members on both sides in their analysis of the amendment, that we must do something about these attacks on the police but that this is not the right way to do it, even though we condemn the assaults and condemn the environment in which they take place. Not only must such behaviour be condemned—we must consider seriously the way in which we solve the problem; but we cannot support this new clause.
I do not want to keep the House; we have spent a long time on this new clause, and there are many more to come. The law as it stands provides the right remedies. The guidelines mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Burton exist. A very dangerous precedent would be set by this blanket ruling. It would undermine a fundamental principle of British justice—that cases must be judged, within that framework of guidelines, on their merits.
I talked very recently to an eminent recorder who pointed out that he had had before him not long ago a case of quite a serious assault—in one way, a very similar assault to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Ryedale. A policeman got a black eye, a damaged ear and other slight injuries. The court, taking the circumstances of the case into account, did not send the man to prison. There is a great danger that, if the flexibility of our court system were not a fundamental principle of British justice, it would be less fair.
The second part of the new clause would remove parole from the options. This also is difficult, as it would run counter to the theme behind the Government's proposals in the Bill.
We hope that the Government will resist the new clause. It is unnecessary, it is against the feeling of the Bill and it would sidestep the issue that we should be doing something fundamental to reassess the role of British police in our society.

Mr. John Patten: The House has been united on two points. The first is our sorrow at the outrageous incident that led to the death of PC Gladwell. I know that the House would like to extend our sympathy to his widow and family. Secondly, we are united in whole-hearted support of the police, and in our desire that the police should be protected.
This interesting debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) who, with his usual clarity, set out the position of the police, and the need for protection in contemporary society. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge was strongly supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), whom I first met in a back kitchen near the border when he was an innocent member of the Ulster Defence Regiment, before he came to the


House. We all listened to what he had to say and we support what the Royal Ulster Constabulary does in the Province to help the people there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who was kind enough to let me intervene not once but twice in his speech, and my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), who made a characteristically powerful speech, supported my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge.
We also heard from some agnostics, some "don't knows" and some "dead againsts" such as the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Another was my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who was a serving policeman. He has given a new impetus to the expression "a kick in the foyer". My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke powerfully, as someone who sits as a recorder.
If all worked well in the criminal justice system, the police would get the protection that most people want them to get, because of the offences that already exist. Section 51 of the Police Act 1972 and the important guideline sentences from the Court of Appeal are part of the system. In 1979, the case of McKenlay laid down the clear guideline judgment that, even in the case of minor assaults on the police, if the court sees fit to give a sentence of imprisonment, it should do so.
In the same year, the equally important case of Byrd went to the Court of Appeal. Two police officers were knocked to the ground; their assailants were found guilty and sentenced to six months. In an appeal, the judgment was upheld and the Lord Justice of Appeal thought that the sentence might not have been long enough. The Attorney-General now has the power to go back to the Court of Appeal when he feels that sentences are too lenient, and he has done that in 24 cases. In 21 of those cases, sentences were increased. That additional power was welcomed when it was introduced.
I prefer not to get into too much detail on whether we should have minimum sentences, for I am looking forward to debates on that when we get to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). In any case, my case was pleaded eloquently for me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. Nor do I want to get involved in a debate about where to stop. We could ask whether such protection should be extended to prison guards, probation officers or even sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, all of whom do a difficult job.
I make my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and his supporters an offer. We do not have adequate information. I have already given my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, in response to an important point he made, an undertaking that I will ask a series of survey questions. We do not yet have the 1990 figures, but we have the 1989 figures. As I remember it, there were about 37,000 convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in England and Wales. In 10 per cent. of those cases, sentences of imprisonment were given, and the average sentence was seven months.
However, we do not know how many of those cases of assault were against policemen and policewomen, who share the difficult task that the federated ranks and the

superintendent ranks carry out. For the reasons that I have given and that have been given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and others, it would not be right for us to proceed on the basis of inadequate information. There is a great deal of anecdotal information, of which I do not doubt the importance or strength, but that is not sufficient evidence. I have already ordered a survey of such statistical material as the Home Office has to see whether we can get this information.
In response to the powerful arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, I am prepared to say that, for a six-month period from 1 June this year, we shall conduct a survey of all court sentences on this offence to see how many involve policemen and policewomen and how many lead to sentences of imprisonment. Then, if we find that the situation is not as we want, we shall have to take action—I echo the views of my hon. and learned Friend and of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).
As soon as the figures are available, we shall conduct a survey, and I shall make the figures available to the House. I hope that, with that undertaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge will not push the new clause to a Division.

Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has resumed his seat.

Mr. Shersby: I thank the House and all hon. Members who have contributed to this useful debate. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the assurance that he will conduct a survey. I gave a figure of 20,000 assaults on police, many of them occasioning actual bodily harm, and I am certain that the Police Federation and the other police staff associations will be pleased to co-operate with the Home Office in carrying out the survey to validate those figures and to pinpoint how many of them fall in that category.
The Police Federation, in advance of the debate, asked the secretaries of the joint branch boards of the 43 police forces in England and Wales for information about the number of cases where a custodial sentence was not awarded. I was alarmed at the information that came back to me, which showed that custodial sentences have not been awarded in quite serious cases. That is why the offer of a survey is valuable; it will enable the House to have at its disposal figures which are incontrovertible.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will lose no time in coming back to the House, when he has the evidence, with proposals to deal with the problem. I am sure he knows that Greater Manchester police have already set up a survey and monitoring procedure of their own; that was announced by Sir James Anderton recently. I hope that my right hon. Friend will draw upon the information gathered by Greater Manchester.
In the light of what the Minister has said and the contributions of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who rightly pointed out that we need to examine the problems faced by the police in modern society, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you would want me to tell the House that when, in the course of my speech, I said that someone had stolen "Current Sentencing Practice" from the Library, I appear to have been mistaken. I should not like to cast aspersions upon anybody who has anything to do with the House of Commons Library.
I have a note from the Librarian to say that the book has been returned. That means, first, that there was never any intention to deprive the owner permanently thereof, and therefore it cannot have been theft; and, secondly, that there is more to be said for televising the proceedings of the House than I had thought.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am very relieved to hear that honour has been restored.

New Clause 2

IMPRISONMENT OF FINE DEFAULTERS

`(1) A magistrates' court may not issue a warrant of commitment for a default in paying any sum adjudged to be paid by the conviction unless it is of the opinion that it would be—

(a) impracticable to enforce payment of the sum by a warrant of distress or an attachment of earnings order or an application for deduction of sums from amounts payable to the offender by way of income support; and
(b) inappropriate to enforce payment by any other method.

(2) Where a magistrates' court issues a warrant of commitment for default in paying any sum adjudged to be paid by the conviction, it shall state in open court the reasons for its opinion that it would be impracticable to enforce payment of the sum by a warrant of distress or an attachment of earnings order or an application for the deduction of sums from amounts payable to the offender by way of income support.

(3) A magistrates' court shall cause a reason stated under subsection (2) above to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.'.—[Mr. Sheerman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—fine default—
'1(1) Subject to subsection (2) below no court shall have the power to commit to custody any person in respect of the non-payment of all or part of a fine where the offence for which the fine was imposed was itself non-imprisonable.
(2) A court may commit a person to custody for non-payment of all or part of a fine if the court is satisfied that the default is due to the offender's wilful refusal to pay and that there is no other method of dealing with that person.'.

Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clauses 2 and 3 aim to prohibit the imprisonment of fine defaulters except where other methods of enforcement are impracticable. Many of us who are interested in criminal justice reform will have read our Dickens and will have been impressed by the ghastly conditions of debtors' prisons. Some of us thought that they had long since disappeared from British society, but a large number of people are still sent to prison because of failure to pay their fines.
New clause 2 requires any court imprisoning a fine defaulter to state its reasons for believing that it is impracticable to enforce the fine by attaching earnings, attaching income support or the distraint of goods. The

aim of the new clause is to eliminate the imprisonment of fine defaulters except where it is genuinely impracticable to obtain payment.
Evidence shows that far too many people are not given the fullest opportunity to pay. More than a fifth of the people sent to prison each year in England and Wales are there because of non-payment of fines. That means that a great many people are sentenced for offences other than violence or other serious crimes. Of course, we want those who are guilty of sexual offences or of violence to be sent to prison, but do we want our prisons to be full of people who default on fines? Are there not better ways to ensure that people pay their fines?
In 1989, a total of 16,985 people were imprisoned for fine default. The fines had been imposed for a wide range of offences, the largest category being motoring offences. That is astonishing. Of those fined for motoring offences, 4,581 who did not pay the fines finished up in prison. The number sent to prison for theft and fraud was 3,865. In 1989, 22 per cent. of all offenders entering prison and 40 per cent. of those given sentences of six months or less were there for fine default.
Let us imagine what that does to the prison system, which clogs up with people who should never have been in prison in the first place. Those people have to be admitted, processed and looked after, which involves a great deal of administration. Because most sentences for fine default are short, defaulters represent just 1·3 per cent. of the average daily population of sentenced prisoners and 11·4 per cent. of those serving six months or less. That puts the matter in perspective.
However, even a small proportion of fine defaulters can cause serious problems for a hard-pressed prison system, especially since the strain is felt most in local prisons where overcrowding is greatest. Those of us, like the Minister of State, who have been to Armley, Strangeways and other local prisons know the pressure on them. We should be taking whatever pressure we can off them.
We are still waiting for the Woolf report on the investigation into the Strangeways disturbance. We hope to have it before the Bill goes to another place. Before we even see that report, we know that if we could have taken some pressure off Strangeways and other local prisons by getting fine defaulters out of prison, we would have done a thorough job in keeping out of prison people who should never have been there and in taking pressure off a prison system which is near breaking point, especially when we think of the work involved in the reception of 17,000 prisoners, regardless of each prisoner's length of stay in the establishment.
Two important provisions in the Bill could bring about a great reduction in the number of imprisoned fine defaulters. The first is the unit fine system which, by tailoring fines in proportion to an offender's income, should reduce the number of unrealistically high fines imposed on poor offenders. We have been campaigning for that for many years, and at last we have got it. It is common sense that people should pay a proportion of their income and that that proportion should be fair.
The second provision will enable fines to be deducted from income support payments. Since it is estimated by the Home Office that 90 per cent. of imprisoned fine defaulters are unemployed, that should provide a practical alternative to imprisonment in many cases. Because courts will be able to attach earnings or income support and to distrain goods, it should rarely be necessary to resort to


imprisonment. The new clauses would help ensure that courts use wide-ranging enforcement powers to obtain payment instead of imposing imprisonment.
The new clauses would add to the provisions in the Bill. They deserve sympathetic consideration by the Government. When they were debated in Committee the Minister of State said:
Attachment of earnings and the attachment of social security payments—a reform that has been welcomed widely—will make it possible for people to avoid imprisonment. If they are not satisfied, magistrates do not have to commit people to prison".
He concluded:
Although the introduction of the new clause is well intentioned, it is unnecessary".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 7 February 1991; cc. 735–6.]
Those comments miss the point. Giving the courts a range of powers to enforce fines does not guarantee that they will always use them when it is appropriate. At present, the readiness of courts to use their enforcement options varies greatly. Research into four magistrates courts by the Vera Institute of Justice, published in 1986 under the title "The Enforcement of Fines as Criminal Sanctions", found that
courts rarely exhaust the enforcement options available to
them before they resort either to the most coercive (and most costly) enforcement device—a committal to prison—or to writing off the fine as uncollectable.
More recently, the result of research at one arrears court by Drs. Allison Morris and Lorraine Gelsthorpe was published in The Magistrate in October 1990. Those academics wrote:
From an examination of the outcomes, it is clear that certain powers of enforcement were rarely used: there was only one money payment supervision order even though a number of defendants seemed to have severe personal difficulties. And there was only one attachment of earnings order made yet more than half … of the men interviewed were employed at the time of this hearing. In few cases was the question of an attachment of earnings order even raised".
It seems that those powers could be used more widely,
particularly where a suspended committal is used as a substitute method of enforcement … The arrears court we attended relied more heavily on the use of suspended committals than many of its other enforcement powers.
If that is the case—the evidence that we have quoted is, I think, both respectable and thorough—the Minister should accept the new clause. That would have a major effect on our prison system, and would ensure an end to the Dickensian situation to which I referred earlier. Many hon. Members have incurred fines for speeding——

Mr. John Patten: Name them.

Mr. Sheerman: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been fined recently. Such people should not end up in prison, and the new clause would ensure that they did not.
The report in The Magistrate concluded:
Arrears courts should perhaps be obliged to show that they have used all other powers available to them before resorting to suspended committals.
The discipline of having to give reasons in the form required by the new clause would help to focus the attention of the courts on the alternative enforcement methods available, and to reduce the chances of defaulters being imprisoned unnecessarily. The Bill requires courts to give reasons for imposing custodial sentences, but does not require them to do so when imprisoning offenders for default. However, the arguments for such a requirement in

default cases are equally strong. In that area of decision-making, as in others, a requirement to give reasons would usefully concentrate sentencers' minds, and would structure their decisions.
We do not consider our proposals highly political, except in the sense that it is a stain on our society that so many prisoners should come into contact with far more serious offenders, and with a prison culture that may introduce them to what has been described as a university of crime. It must be wrong to send fine defaulters to prison to perpetuate the system of debtors' prisons in modern Britain. We hope that the Government will see what a dramatic change our proposals could make.

Mr. Barry Porter: I came here to listen, and I have listened with interest to much of what has been said; I had no intention of speaking, but having heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) I am prompted to express the hope that he will occasionally attend a court rather than listening to academics talking about them.
In this country, it is extremely difficult to be sent to prison—people have to work at it rather hard. I have spent a large part of my life defending the undefendable, and sometimes the indefensible, and I know how the system works. A person may describe, with tears in his eyes, being convicted for a motoring offence and thereafter sent to prison, but it is not like that at all. A chap who has been driving without insurance or without a licence, for instance, will be fined a couple of hundred pounds on the unit system, which has in practice been working for years. Magistrates do not fine people who are on social security—or whatever it is called nowadays—more than a man earning £10,000 per year.
The motoring offender is then fined £200 for various offences and, on the advice of people like myself, offers to pay £2 per week. The magistrate will tell him to pay £3 a week—or, in the case of a particularly hard bench, £4. The offender will tell me—or, perhaps, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones)—that he cannot pay, whereupon we will say, "Have a go, and come back in three weeks." We will then make an application to have the order varied.
The magistrates will vary the order to £2 or £3 a week. If the offender still does not pay, he will be brought back to an arrears court, where he will say, "£2 is all that I can pay." A suspended committal follows—rather harsh, at that stage.
It does not often happen in that way, however. In my experience, and in that of anyone who practises in the courts, magistrates go to vast lengths to ensure that the weekly amount can be paid; only a fool, or someone who is determined not to obey the order of the court, will end up in prison. People may talk of a university of crime, but these are offenders who will go down for 14 or 30 days. I have known people to choose that option, because it is cheaper and relatively pleasant—in their experience—to spend time in Walton prison in Liverpool, and they would rather do that than pay up.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield suggests that there is a Dickensian state of affairs in which people are sent to prison for debt. That state of affairs does not exist. Nowadays, if people go to prison for not paying fines, it is


because they choose to—every magistrates court in my experience has given people every possible opportunity to avoid that. The new clause is a waste of time.

Mr. Maclennan: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but I enjoyed reading the speeches, especially those made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). He made a notable contribution to the Committee proceedings, and has done the same today. As I agree with every word that he has said, I need not speak at length this evening. It is sometimes pleasant to express satisfaction with an identity of view across the parties, and to put aside the partisan feelings that too often divide us.
No doubt the anecdotal evidence presented by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) is true of many individual cases with which he has been associated, but he did not attempt to argue against the statistical evidence regarding the people who end up in prison for defaulting on fines. The hon. Gentleman said that for some people it was cheaper to go to prison than to pay a fine. That is no reason why society should accept their choice if there is another way of dealing with the problem. It is more expensive for society to imprison people, and if we can possibly keep those people out of prison, that must be our objective.

Mr. Porter: They will never pay.

Mr. Maclennan: There may be an irreducible number of people who will not pay. I understand that in a number of Scandinavian countries it is not possible to send people to prison for fine default. Experience in those countries is not such as to suggest that we should lightly cast these new clauses aside. In the light of some of the arguments that the Minister deployed in Committee, I believe that, strictly speaking, the new clauses may not be necessary. However, they are desirable. What is particularly desirable is the requirement that the reasons for not adopting the alternative methods of ensuring the payment of fines should be given. The requirement to give reasons could very well alter practices which fall short of the Government's clear intention that incarceration should be avoided in all but the most serious cases.

Mr. John Patten: It is always good to hear people speak from experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), whom I am happy to see on the Front Bench now, gave us the benefit of his quarter century's practice in the courts. He and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) have seen some of these things at first hand in the area where they both practise. I enjoyed the company of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn on the Standing Committee, and felt very uneasy that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was not there. Taking a criminal justice measure through its stages is not the same without the presence of the hon. Gentleman. However, we have heard him today.
I should be right behind much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), and would suggest that his new clauses be accepted, were it not for changes made in other parts of the Bill. We are introducing unit fines and income support attachments, which I believe make these new clauses unnecessary. None of us wants to see fine defaulters committed to prison unnecessarily. The number of people committed for default went down steadily during the 1980s. The average

time a male defaulter spends in prison is now eight days, and in the case of a women it is six days. These periods are considerably shorter than those which applied in the Dickensian England conjured up by the hon. Member for Huddersfield. Indeed, the length of time that a fine defaulter now spends in gaol is half what it was a decade ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wiral, South said, it now quite hard to go to prison unless one really wants to.
Under the Bill, because of the introduction of unit fines and income support deductions, the number of people in prison should fall quite rapidly. In saying that, one is not crying in the wind. Unit fine scheme experiments conducted in four areas—one in Wales, and the other three in England—indicate that the number of people imprisoned for fine default fell quite sharply. Thanks to the radical changes that the Bill makes—changes which have been widely welcomed—I believe that that trend will continue. That being so, I cannot recommend that the House should accept the new clauses.

Mr. Sheerman: I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Wiral, South (Mr. Porter). It seems that, after all those years in the courts, he is rather cynical. It is a pity that he is unable to take a fresh look at the situation—especially at the figures and at the research material that I quoted. As I have said, a large number of people are ending up in prison for the non-payment of fines. The Minister agrees that they should not be there. It is in a positive spirit that Her Majesty's Opposition are trying to improve the Bill.

Mr. Patten: What about unit fines?

Mr. Sheerman: We understand unit fines. Indeed, for years we have campaigned for them. We also understand social security payment attachments. All of that is indeed good stuff, but our new clauses, with the other changes, would create a system which would to a large extent clear out of our prisons people who had not paid fines. That would be a very positive step.
I was grateful for the kind words of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). It is good to know that he and I agree on this. We have here an opportunity to get away from a Dickensian situation. Whatever may be said, many of our prisons have conditions very similar to, if not worse than, those that Dickens described. Even if people choose to go to prison for seven or 10 days, or however long, imprisonment for this kind of offence cannot be right, and we want to stop it. The new clauses, with the other changes made by the Bill, would help to achieve that.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland made an excellent point when he talked about people choosing to go to prison. I understand that some people on low incomes who get into debt might choose to go to prison for five or 10 days as a means of wiping out the debt. As a society, however, we ought not to provide that option unless everything else has been tried. Only when all other measures, such as attachment of earnings or of social security payments, have been exhausted should the court reluctantly choose a short term of imprisonment. That is all that the new clauses seek to achieve.

Mr. Lawrence: As that is what happens already, is there any basis for the new clauses?

Mr. Sheerman: Every year, under the present system, 17,000 people are sent to prison for short terms. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in the House earlier, he would have heard the research evidence that I quoted. That research shows that magistrates do not use their powers. Under the new clauses, magistrates would be directed to go through all other processes before imposing terms of imprisonment. I should have thought that that very simple proposal would be acceptable to any reasonable Member. We shall reluctantly press the new clauses to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 300.

Division No. 71]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Fatchett, Derek


Allen, Graham
Faulds, Andrew


Alton, David
Fearn, Ronald


Anderson, Donald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flynn, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Foster, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fraser, John


Ashton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Galbraith, Sam


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Battle, John
George, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beith, A. J.
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bell, Stuart
Gordon, Mildred


Bellotti, David
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Hardy, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Buckley, George J.
Henderson, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, Jimmy


Canavan, Dennis
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cartwright, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Illsley, Eric


Cohen, Harry 
Ingram, Adam


Corbett, Robin
Janner, Greville


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Crowther, Stan
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Charles


Cunlitfe, Lawrence
Kilfedder, James


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Darling, Alistair
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lambie, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dixon, Don
Leighton, Ron


Dobson, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Doran, Frank
Lewis, Terry


Duffy, A. E. P.
Litherland, Robert


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livingstone, Ken


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eadie, Alexander
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Loyden, Eddie





McAllion, John
Richardson, Jo


McAvoy, Thomas
Robertson, George


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


Macdonald, Calum A.
Rooney, Terence


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Rowlands, Ted


Maclennan, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


McMaster, Gordon
Salmond, Alex


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Clare


Marek, Dr John
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Martlew, Eric
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Straw, Jack


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Turner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Murphy, Paul
Wallace, James


Nellist, Dave
Walley, Joan


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Neill, Martin
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Patchett, Terry
Wilson, Brian


Pendry, Tom
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Prescott, John
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray. Jimmy


Quin, Ms Joyce



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Reid, Dr John





NOES


Adley. Robert
Bowis, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Alexander, Richard
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brazier, Julian


Allason, Rupert
Bright, Graham


Amess, David
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amos, Alan
Browne, John (Winchester)


Arbuthnot, James
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Buck, Sir Antony


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Budgen, Nicholas


Ashby, David
Burns, Simon


Aspinwall, Jack
Butler, Chris


Atkins, Robert
Butterfill, John


Atkinson, David
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carrington, Matthew


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Batiste, Spencer
Chapman, Sydney


Beggs, Roy
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, Mr


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Conway, Derek


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Body, Sir Richard
Cope, Rt Hon John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cormack, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James 


Bos well, Tim
Cran, James


Bottomley, Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Curry, David


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Davis, David (Boothferry)






Day, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dicks, Terry
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dover, Den
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dunn, Bob
Latham, Michael


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evennett, David
Lilley, Peter


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fookes, Dame Janet
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Maginnis, Ken


French, Douglas
Malins, Humfrey


Fry, Peter
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Maples, John


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Marlow, Tony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Sir Hal


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Sir David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hague, William
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hannam, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mudd, David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayward, Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Norris, Steve


Hill, James
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hind. Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard


Holt, Richard
Paice, James


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pawsey, James


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Rt. Hon. David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Irvine, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Irving, Sir Charles
Price, Sir David


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Janman, Tim
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard





Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thorne, Neil


Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shelton, Sir William
Tracey, Richard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trimble, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers. Peter


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walters, Sir Dennis


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, Sir John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Ray


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wood, Timothy


Stokes, Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sumberg, David
Yeo, Tim


Summerson, Hugo
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Younger, Rt Hon George


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 4

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

'—(1) The Secretary of State shall in each year publish such information as he considers expedient for the purpose of enabling persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice to become aware of the implications of their decisions on the elimination of racial discrimination.

(2) Publication under subsection (1) above shall be effected in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the information to the attention of the persons concerned.'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Labour Members accept that there is no dispute across the Dispatch Box about the principle that we hope to demonstrate and enshrine in law. The Government may not wish to follow the course that we propose, but we accept without reservation that they, no less than the Opposition, want to ensure that courts take decisions free from racial prejudice and without even a hint of discrimination. Indeed, paragraph 1.16 of the White Paper says:
There must be no discrimination because of a defendant's race, nationality, standing in the community or any other reason.
I repeat that I know that the Government want to pursue that principle.
I think that I can say without undue contention that we want to pursue that principle more effectively and actively than the Government seem prepared to do. I hope that it


can be pursued by a statement in law requiring courts to operate in a way that is non-discriminatory or prejudicial to any race or group.
The amendment that would have effected that proposition has not been called, but the principle underlying our intention is in new clause 4, which seeks to provide authoritative, undisputed and indisputable information on the way in which courts behave, in the belief that, if evidence showed prejudice or discrimination in the judicial system, the Government would act on it, or perhaps before they did so the courts would say, "The fears are justified, so we must mend our ways in advance of legislation."
7.15 pm
I have little doubt that the operation of the courts is such that black and Asian British people are more likely to receive a custodial sentence than their white counterparts convicted of equivalent or identical crimes. Almost all the evidence points to that conclusion. In 1985, 12·5 per cent. of our prison population came from ethnic minorities. In 1989, 16 per cent. of the prison population were black and Asian British. The figures for women were 24 per cent. in 1985 and 29 per cent. in 1989. However, only 5 per cent. of the population are black and Asian British.
It is theoretically possible to argue that black and Asian British people are imprisoned more than their proportion of the population would warrant simply because they offend more frequently and seriously and therefore incur custodial sentences more frequently than their white contemporaries, but none of the evidence supports that. A Home Office survey found no discrimination in sentencing policy, but it certainly did not confirm the view that black and Asian British people go to prison more frequently because they commit more offences or because they commit more serious offences.
Members of the ethnic minorities entering prison have, on average, fewer previous convictions than their white counterparts. They are substantially less likely to be remanded on bail than their white counterparts; but, having been remanded, they are much more likely to be acquitted of all offences than their white counterparts. None of the evidence suggests that they commit crimes more frequently, but most of it suggests that they suffer from discrimination.
I do not know whether that discrimination stems from the behaviour of juries or of judges, or whether it is overt or unconscious. I know only that the evidence of the statistics—I shall either entertain or bore the House with more of them later—is that ethnic minorities are more likely to be sent to prison without due cause than their white contemporaries.
A Home Office study, "Sentencing Practice in the Crown Courts", found that there was no racial discrimination in sentencing. Since 1988, other studies on wider statistical bases reached the opposite conclusion. A study by West Yorkshire probation service found that 32 per cent. of white offenders, 44 per cent. of Afro-Caribbean offenders and 45 per cent. of Asian offenders were sent to prison for similar offences.
The Middlesex probation service took an enormous sample of 8,000 men and women who were convicted and sentenced in Greater London. It found that, on conviction for assault, 50 per cent. of white defendants were given

custodial sentences, whereas 75 per cent. of black and Asian defendants were similarly sentenced. For burglary, 49 per cent. of white offenders were imprisoned, whereas the figure for black and Asian defendants was 64 per cent.
Whatever else one might say about that evidence, it is impossible to disagree with the contention that there is a potential problem. No one reading those statistics could say, "There is no problem." Some people might say that it is not as great as the statistics suggest, or they may dispute the causes. New clause 4 is a modest attempt to deal with the problem. It simply asks for monitoring of statistics, which would enable us to be aware of the extent of the problem.
I have no doubt that, were this Home Secretary in particular to judge that there was discrimination in sentencing, he would want to move against it. I look forward to hearing an explanation, but I am baffled as to why the Government oppose this course.
Our great hope was that the Government would be in favour of a much more progressive point of view—enshrining in law the obligation of the courts to act in a non-discriminatory and non-prejudicial way. That was the subject of an argument between the previous Home Secretary, Lord Waddington, and me on Second Reading. I told him that I believed that the Home Office had prepared new clauses that would put this idea into effect, but Lord Waddington insisted that that was not so. He agreed that the Home Office had considered that possibility and discussed it with a variety of organisations, but said that it had not been able to provide an adequate new clause to give that effect.
We provided such a new clause—unfortunately, we cannot debate it tonight—and the Minister of State said:
I shall look sympathetically at the proposal.
The Minister went further, and said:
It is likely that further consideration will persuade me of the merits of the new clause."—[ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 December 1990; c. 92–103.]
We shall never know whether that further consideration would have persuaded the right hon. Gentleman of the merits, because we cannot move the new clause. If he were as good as his word and were prepared to go all the way and accept a new clause that specified that courts must not behave in a prejudiced or discriminatory manner, I cannot imagine that he would not go halfway and agree to a new clause that provided the statistics that would enable us to know whether courts behave in that way.
At column 94 of the Committee Hansard, the Minister again expressed his sympathy for that view. He gave my colleagues the impression—perhaps they misjudged him—that he would support the measure. Perhaps what we read in the newspapers is wrong and the Minister intends to support it.
If this measure does not become law, there will be two results. According to the evidence, there will be a continuation of sentencing policy which means that a black or Asian British citizen is more likely—at least in some courts—to go to prison than his white counterpart. There will also be a deep, and in my view justified, suspicion among the black and Asian British that, although there may be statements of good intentions about their being citizens with equal rights who must be treated identically to everyone else, when the time comes to put those good intentions into force, the "establishment" flinches and does not take the necessary steps. I use the


word "establishment" because no one will doubt that, if the Government resist the new clause, in a sense they will be resisting it on behalf of the judiciary.

Sir Antony Buck: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. What information does he think it is expedient to provide to enable those purposes to be fulfilled? I do not know what he wants published. I can think only of publication of information that would exacerbate racial prejudice, rather than the reverse.

Mr. Hattersley: There should be publication of the type of information obtained in individual court areas and probation areas by reputable statistical methods, but that information has not been comprehensive.
In the Middlesex probation area, 49 per cent. of white defendants go to prison for burglary offences, compared with 64 per cent. of black and Asian defendants. Such information should be available for the whole country. As we said when we argued for a sentencing council, since much discrimination is unintentional, if those presiding over one court discovered from the evidence provided by the Home Office statistics that they were discriminating against Asian or black citizens, they would cease to do so.
We all know that much of the discrimination faced by the black and Asian British is not intentional in the sense that a magistrate says, "This man is black, therefore he is wicked. I shall send him to prison." There is a general aura of discrimination, and a prejudicial act takes place without magistrates knowing that they are behaving in a prejudicial way. If we draw that to the attention of decent people—I am sure that most magistrates and justices are decent people—they would want to rectify the situation. That is our intention.

Mr. Janman: If the right hon. Gentleman's assumptions about the statistics are correct and those statistics were produced, would he want the more liberal sentences given to the whites increased or would he want the harsher sentences given to the blacks and browns decreased? The right hon. Gentleman would have to choose one or the other.

Mr. Hattersley: It is not a question whether my assumptions are correct; it is a matter of my figures, which are correct. The hon. Gentleman can draw what assumptions he likes from the figures, but they are not in dispute.
My answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), which I have a sneaking suspicion he thought was a trick, is the answer that the Government and the Opposition would give: there are some crimes, the most severe ones, for which severe sentences are appropriate; there are other crimes, the less severe ones, for which custodial sentences are not appropriate. As the hon. Gentleman must know if he thinks for a moment, it is not possible for anyone who wants to deal seriously with these matters to say, "I want the severity of all sentences increased," or, "I want the severity of all sentences decreased." That is not a serious question. If the hon. Gentleman has a serious question to ask me, I shall give way to him.

Mr. Janman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. With the greatest respect, this is a serious point. I am not talking about different offences. I am saying that for any one given offence—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned

burglary—if the assumption behind the statistics is correct, to have consistency irrespective of colour, either those who are sentenced to short sentences because they are white should have their sentences increased across the board, or vice versa for non-white people. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He is drawing broad conclusions from statistics. He says that one must draw a conclusion either way as to which sentences will be increased and which will not. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Hattersley: I do not want to detain the House much longer, but I shall try to explain the position. I do not know the length of the sentences of those men and women sent to prison; I know the facts of their sentences. I shall give the hon. Gentleman the same example that I have given him twice. We know that, in the Middlesex probation area, 49 per cent. of the whites convicted of burglary went to prison, compared with 64 per cent. of black and Asian citizens. I do not know for how long they went to prison. Can anyone argue that that inconsistency is right? Some of the white defendants who went to prison may have been sentenced for too long or for too short a time. Perhaps the same happened to the blacks. I am asking for equal treatment of the races. I do not know how one can possibly argue against that, but I shall let the hon. Member for Thurrock try.

Mr. Janman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification. I admit that I slightly misunderstood what he said, but my logic still applies, albeit on a slightly different point. Once the statistics were published, would the right hon. Gentleman conclude that more white offenders who committed burglaries should be sent to prison or that fewer black or brown offenders committing burglaries should be sent to prison?

Mr. Hattersley: The only way in which criminal justice can work is by allowing judges discretion. Most judges will want to exercise that discretion in a non-prejudiced and non-racial way. By giving them these statistics, we shall enable them to do that. We are doing no more and no less than that. I say "no less" because this measure is vital, for two reasons. It is vital for some individuals who would not be in prison if they were white. It is important in terms of the human feelings, obligations and decency towards individual cases. It is vital also in terms of the declaration that the House makes.
I repeat that I have no doubt that the Government's intentions are little different from the Opposition's intentions in this particular. However, very often in such matters, it is not intentions that matter most, but putting those intentions into practical effect. That is what the new clause will do, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. Lawrence: What the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about his justification for the new clause is a serious allegation against the judiciary and is utterly without foundation. I have been practising in courts for 29 years——

Mr. Alun Michael: Good God.

Mr. Lawrence: I do not know the age of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael),


who said "Good God" with some disbelief. I do not suppose that he has been practising in our courts for 29 years.

Mr. Michael: As the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have an interest in the matter, I am 47. I was a magistrate from 1971 until entering this place. I also worked in a community that had a considerable mix of ethnic minorities and I know how well-founded are the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).

Mr. Lawrence: If there is any merit in what the hon. Gentleman says, he must have worked in one of the few disgraceful courts in this country. My experience—I repeat that it is pretty considerable, not only in higher courts but in magistrates courts—is that there is no basis whatsoever in the allegation that members of our judiciary make decisions according to racial bias.

Mr. Hattersley: It is the hon. and learned Gentleman's habit to proceed by assertion, but, looking at the figures that I have given, to what does he attribute the vast discrepancy in sentencing within ethnic groups?

Mr. Lawrence: I shall refer to that matter in a moment. [Interruption.] I shall refer to it.
We have had consistent criticism—I do not mean from Opposition Members, although it may include some of them—that our judiciary is middle-class white. It is my experience that, if anything, middle-class intellectuals are so careful of not being thought to be biased or not allowing themselves to be biased in any way against blacks, browns or any under-privileged group in our society that they have a propensity to reduce—[Interruption.] I am answering the point that was made by the right hon. Gentleman, but he is busy talking. I do not mean that the right hon. Gentleman is showing any discourtesy, but it is an important matter. He asked me a question and I shall proceed to answer it.
I do not doubt for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman's statistics are presented by certain organisations. By that I mean no discredit to such organisations, but I have no doubt that the purpose of their research is to see whether they can establish some kind of racial discrimination. However, one of those statistics shows that more black or brown people are kept in custody on remand than whites. There is a perfectly logical and factual explanation for that, and it has nothing to do with racial bias.
When considering bail for burglary or a serious offence such as assault in particular, a judge must consider whether the accused is likely to turn up for his trial. The judge must consider whether the person has a fixed address, whether he is in work and whether he can provide a surety. The unfortunate fact—again this point is often made by the right hon. Gentleman in home affairs debates, and nobody deplores it more than I do—is that there are areas in which there is high unemployment for black people. That may be discriminatory; I do not doubt it. However, I challenge the allegation that there is discrimination by the judiciary. Being unemployed, having no fixed address and not having people to be sureties—in other words, not being able to conform with the statutory requirements for the granting or refusal of bail—have

nothing to do with racial discrimination by the courts. However, they have everything to do with the fact that the necessary requirements, which must be satisfied before a court grants bail for any serious offences, are not complied with. That may be through no fault of the person involved, but because of circumstances which, if there were any other rule, would make the pursuance of justice impracticable. That explains at least one of the statistics.
I now give the right hon. Gentleman an anecdote. I recall having trouble from time to time considering what is the appropriate sentence for coloured people—I include black and brown people—who have been unco-operative with their probation officers. They are remanded to see the probation service and, for whatever reason—there may be many—they are unco-operative. The probation service wants to ask them questions that they do not want to answer. It is very difficult for a sentencer who has in mind doing something with the offender that will stop him going to prison for however short a period if that person is totally unco-operative with the one person who can help him—the probation officer.
I recall several cases in which people who are not white have made matters much worse for themselves because they will not co-operate with their probation officer. We are talking only about differences between reasonably small percentage points, even given the fact that those figures are accurate and explain something.
The implication of what the right hon. Gentleman says is that there is some deep-rooted racism in our judiciary which causes judges to sentence coloured people more harshly or to sentence them to prison, when that is necessary. But that cannot happen accidentally. It must be deliberate discrimination. It is the judge saying, "This man is black or brown, so I must treat him harshly". If this is what happens—and I believe that there would have to be deliberate discrimination in our courts—what on earth is the use of a new clause that requires information to be given to sentencers so that they should be aware of the implications of their decisions on the elimination of racial discrimination? That could be justified only on the basis that such discrimination is inadvertent, that it happens accidentally and that, if only those wicked sentencers knew a bit more about the implications of their decisions, they would refrain from doing so. I cannot see that that can possibly be so. The new clause would have no effect at all.
I quite understand that raising the point gives the right hon. Gentleman the credit for drawing attention again in this great Chamber of Parliament to the wicked state of society in which our judiciary and others are racially discriminatory. However, the new clause would actually achieve nothing. Discrimination in our courts cannot be accidental. It must be deliberate and those who are deliberately discriminating would not pay two minutes' attention to any such information.
I make that point merely on the basis that the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is such discrimination. But I utterly reject it from my experience. It is not true. It does not happen. The right hon. Gentleman is raising a myth, not a fact. He should not be supported on a new clause that gives effect to a myth.

Mr. Archer: At the risk of shocking some of my hon. Friends, I regret that the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) did not serve with us in Committee. Had he done so, he might well have made a speech disagreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member


for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but I do not think that he would have made the speech that he has just made, and I do not believe that we shall hear such a speech from the Minister. It is true that the Minister rejected our proposals in Committee largely, as I understood it, because he does not believe in "declarations" in legislation, which we were then proposing. I have a great deal of sympathy with that point of view. Declarations do not often help very much, but they are not what we are now proposing.
We are now proposing to start from two propositions which I hope command universal support in the House. The first is that everyone should be equal before the law. The second is that that is manifestly not the case at the moment. On any showing, if people from ethnic minorities represent 5 per cent. of the general population and 16 per cent. of the prison population, those figures cannot be dismissed as a possible margin of error or as statistical flexibility. They must compel us to look for the reason for the difference.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, "If we discover that there is some kind of discrepancy, what do we do? Do we sentence black people more lightly or white people more heavily?" No, we should ask ourselves the reason for the discrepancy. That is all that the Opposition are seeking.
Several reasons have been suggested. One was explored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook a moment ago and was raised in Committee when we were asked whether black people commit more offences than white people or whether they commit more offences of a particular kind. The answer is no, for the reason that my right hon. Friend gave. People from the ethnic minorities who receive custodial sentences have fewer previous convictions than people from the white majority. However, supposing that that were the reason, should it not make us want to know the reason, in turn, for that? Should we not want to know the factors which make it happen? Supposing black people do commit more offences—if young people from the minority groups are unemployed, it is possible that in some areas they are short of money, have time on their hands and a chip on their shoulder because they are unemployed, and those are all factors which might lead people to commit more offences, but we know that that is not the explanation.
In a throwaway line, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook asked whether juries are discriminatory. That is not the answer either, because we are considering the proportion of convicted people, which is where the discrepancy arises.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton said that we are saying that there is conscious discrimination by the courts. I have never heard my right hon. Friend say that, I have never said it, and I do not believe it to be the case.

Mr. Lawrence: That was the implication.

Mr. Archer: No, my right hon. Friend did not imply that.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to clarify the point. I was saying that, in our society, discrimination has to be deliberate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has to be deliberate for a judge to discriminate because he, above all others, must hold the scales of justice equal. He is trained

to do that, and that is why he has been appointed. He is experienced in doing that, and that is why he has the respect of his peers. If there is any discrimination, the judge will know about it, and it will be deliberate. That was the point that I was trying to make.

Mr. Archer: There are two reasons why the hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong, but I begin by declaring an interest. Some of my best friends are judges—[Interruption.] That is quite literally true in my case. I have great respect for our judiciary, which I think is probably among the best in the world, but I do not think that our judges and recorders are perfect. From time to time, all of us fall into error.
I should like to give two examples of the traps into which we can all fall. First, we are sometimes guilty of cultural misunderstandings on both sides of the cultural divide. I gave an example in Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Burton may be sitting as a recorder. Before him in the dock is an Afro-Caribbean who is chewing. I do not know the hon. and learned Gentleman's views on chewing, but he might very well think, "This chap is showing disrespect for the court." In fact, the youth may be doing nothing of the sort. He may be behaving perfectly normally and it would not have occurred to him that he might be showing disrespect. If he is told to stop chewing, he will have a stereotypical view of the hon. and learned Gentleman as somebody out of the last century. I make no further comment on that.
There are many cultural misunderstandings. I know members of the judiciary who do not like young men with dreadlocks. That is a failure to meet culturally. The problems are exacerbated when there is a generation divide as well as a cultural divide. However fair we try to be, some of us may have at the back of our minds the thought, "Here is somebody who is not taking his offence seriously and who is not even trying to show respect for the court." In fact, the defendant may be doing no such thing.
My second example is similar, but not quite the same. I refer to the trap of the stereotype. I related in Committee that my wife, who is a magistrate, recently had occasion to read a probation report, one sentence of which read:
When I discovered that he was Irish, I inquired whether he had a drink problem.
I am certain that that probation officer was not trying to be difficult and that he or she did not have anything against Irish people. The probation officer was probably trying to be helpful.
Another example can be found in one of the earliest prosecutions under the Race Relations Act 1976. I refer to the Alexander case, in which the discrimination arose from a report written at an early stage in the prison history of the young man concerned, which read:
He is an arrogant person who is suspicious of staff and totally anti-authority. He has been described as a violent man with a very large chip on his shoulder which he will find great difficulty in removing. He shows the anti-authoritarian arrogance that seems to be common in most coloured inmates.
I cannot believe that the prison officer who wrote that was consciously being discriminatory. He believed that to be part of the facts of life and of the world in which he lived. If we can learn that such things need putting right, we shall have learnt something worth while.
I hope that the Judicial Studies Board may do something about this problem. My right hon. Friend the


Member for Sparkbrook was asked who will publish the statistics when we have them. One useful publication would be the bulletin that the Judicial Studies Board circulates to the hon. and learned Member for Burton and myself—because all recorders receive it, as do judges. The bulletin makes us think. A number of useful articles in it have caused me to think about things that I was doing wrong without realising it. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the board is considering what can be done about magistrates in terms of racial awareness.
I do not see why that should not be extended to the judiciary. I do not believe that the judges would feel that their dignity was at stake. If a judge felt that, and felt that he could never be guilty of falling into such traps, he would be saying that he was more perfect than the vast majority of the population. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Burton is muttering. I was about to say to him that there is a third reason that we must examine. It relates to the matter about which he was speaking—periods spent in custody on remand.
In answer to a parliamentary question on 30 October 1987, the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten)—who, I hope, will be answering the debate—gave a breakdown of people in custody on remand who were subsequently acquitted. Among white defendants, 3·9 per cent. were acquitted. For Chinese, Arab and what the Home Office described as people of mixed origins, the figure was 6·8 per cent. For those from the Indian sub-continent the figure was 7·2 per cent. For Afro-Caribbeans, it was 7·5 per cent.
One factor which may give rise to that difference is homelessness, to which the hon. and learned Member for Burton referred. It is probably true that there is a higher rate of homelessness among the ethnic minorities. That does not mean that we do not have to address the problem. It does not mean that, once we have recognised that, we can go to sleep on it. One thing that could be done is to produce more bail hostels. I fully recognise that the Home Office is trying to do that. When such hostels are produced, we may again need to have regard to ethnic factors, particularly among women prisoners. It seems that a much higher proportion of women from the ethnic minorities spend time on remand in custody. They may need single sex hostels, again because of cultural factors.
Another reason which may lead to fewer coloured people being given bail is that a higher proportion of them may be unemployed. If people are unemployed, their advocate cannot use the argument that if they are taken into custody they stand to lose their job. That is another possible factor.
Lastly, at the risk of repeating what I have said before, if we want to reduce crime—which is the purpose of all our debates on the Bill—we must obtain the confidence and sympathy, not of Members of Parliament or even members of the judiciary, but of peer groups. The strongest factor which influences a young Afro-Caribbean male in a certain area of London to remain within the law is not what the hon. and learned Member for Burton or I may say, but what his peer group thinks. If we can persuade other young Afro-Caribbeans that the law is fair and that we are trying to administer it in an undiscriminatory way, we may

capture their approval for what we seek to do. That would be more effective than any other single step that we could take.
If the information for which we ask stimulates us to think—I understand that the Minister approved of that in Committee—the purpose of our debate will have been achieved. That purpose is to reduce crime, and it is a matter in which a little thought can pay many dividends.

Mr. John Patten: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), whose contributions to these criminal justice debates will be sorely missed when he is no longer a Member of the House. He is right that we need more bail hostels for women. The first one was opened a few weeks ago by the Griffin Society. I was there for the opening. I agree with him, too, that it is important to do more for women who have mental problems and need hostel accommodation and perhaps long-stay care.
I ask the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West to treat with care the apparent disproportion of women from ethnic minorities who are on remand. If he examines the figures closely, he will find that they include a large number of women who have allegedly carried drugs into the country from west African and other countries and are awaiting trial. That particularly small sample of women on remand is, alas, biased by the large numbers of women who bring in drugs. We hope to put up warning posters at airports in Nigeria and other countries to warn women not to do so and what they will face when they come here.
I entirely agree with what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said in his introductory remarks. He said that both sides of the House shared the same aim. There is no dispute about that. He gave a fair analysis of the current position and the difficulty of drawing on all the published literature, including that which did not always support his argument. That echoed the long, helpful and constructive discussions that we had in Committee. All the members of the Committee were clear about the need for fairness and the avoidance of discrimination in the criminal justice system. I made clear in those debates the Government's firm commitment to achieving that essential fairness. I shall not repeat it because it would be otiose to do so.
In Committee, I gave a long list of all the fairly recent changes that we have made in the way in which we collect information about ethnic background in the probation service, the prison service and elsewhere. A formidable amount of material is now available. Again, I shall not take the time of the House to itemise it all. It is on the record.
I entirely appreciate the spirit in which new clause 4 was moved. The proposal was discussed in some detail in Committee and I said then that I was sympathetic to it. It is always helpful for people to have good information available which they can use in making their decisions, whether in economics, politics or sentencing. Making information available cannot be a bad thing. I am in favour of more information being available.
Information of the type envisaged by the proposal in new clause 4, including the variation in sentencing patterns, can be instructive. It certainly makes one ask some questions. Whether we are dealing with the ethnic, sex or age breakdown of categories of offenders, we see wide variations in the sentences given. That makes us ask


why the variations occur. There is nothing wrong with having that information available and there is nothing wrong with asking those questions. Such information is useful. The Home Office already publishes a great deal of such information and I can see the merits of pulling together in one publication much of the information that we already publish and issuing it annually so that one does not have to ferret round in probation, prison, police, arrest and other statistics. If the information is available, people can make of it what they want.
Non-discrimination is important. That is why I am broadly in favour of publishing more information. However, I should like to do it in a slightly different way, which the House may like to consider. That is encompassed in the starred Government amendments to clause 77 which will be debated on Monday and will certainly be voted on.
The principle which the Government amendments promote is rather similar to those that underlie new clause 4. We have already said that the cost of sentencing decisions needs to be published every year and that seems to have been widely welcomed. Under the new provisions in the amendments to clause 77, the Home Secretary will be under a duty to publish such information as he or she sees fit on the experience of ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system.
The Government amendments differ from new clause 4 in two important respects. First, they extend the proposed publication of information beyond the issue of race alone to include sex and any other relevant information. That will probably give a wider and more comprehensive picture. Secondly, the amendments make clear the importance of the need to avoid discrimination in the criminal justice system. I have no doubt that any unfair discrimination by those working in the criminal justice system would be unlawful—I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on that.
The legal position is clear and for that reason we see no merit in a provision that puts a duty on sentencers and others not to discriminate. That would add nothing to the present legal position. It is right that a provision in the Bill, as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should refer to the need for all those involved in the criminal justice system, not just sentencers, to avoid discrimination. That approach will help to ensure the confidence of all sections of the community in the fairness and impartiality of the criminal justice system.
In the light of my remarks and in view of our amendments to clause 77, I hope that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will not press new clause 4 to a Division. I hope that he will give a fair wind to our amendments when we vote on them on Monday.

8 pm

Mr. Hattersley: We shall undoubtedly give a fair wind to the amendments on Monday, but just to demonstrate our enthusiasm for them we shall divide the House tonight.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 280.

Division No. 72]
[8 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Alton, David





Anderson, Donald
Hinchliffe, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Armstrong, Hilary
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Home Robertson, John


Ashton, Joe
Hood, Jimmy


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Barron, Kevin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Beckett, Margaret
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bell, Stuart
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bellotti, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Illsley, Eric


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ingram, Adam


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bidwell, Sydney
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Boateng, Paul
Kennedy, Charles


Boyes, Roland
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Bradley, Keith
Kirkwood, Archy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Lambie, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Leighton, Ron


Buckley, George J.
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Caborn, Richard
Lewis, Terry


Callaghan, Jim
Litherland, Robert


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Livingstone, Ken


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Loyden, Eddie


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
McAllion, John


Cartwright, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McCartney, Ian


Clay, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clelland, David
McFall, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Corbett, Robin
McMaster, Gordon


Cousins, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cummings, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dixon, Don
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dobson, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Doran, Frank
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Meacher, Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eastham, Ken
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mullin, Chris


Fatchett, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, Dave


Fearn, Ronald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Brien, William


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fraser, John
Parry, Robert


Fyfe, Maria
Patchett, Terry


Galbraith, Sam
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gordon, Mildred
Randall, Stuart


Gould, Bryan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Graham, Thomas
Richardson, Jo


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Robertson, George


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Rooker, Jeff


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rooney, Terence


Grocott, Bruce
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hardy, Peter
Rowlands, Ted


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ruddock, Joan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Sheerman, Barry


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Henderson, Doug
Short, Clare






Skinner, Dennis
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Wigley, Dafydd


Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Strang, Gavin
Worthington, Tony


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wray, Jimmy


Turner, Dennis



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wallace, James
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.


Walley, Joan



Warden, Gareth (Gower)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aitken, Jonathan
Day, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Allason, Rupert
Dover, Den


Amos, Alan
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Emery, Sir Peter 


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkinson, David
Evennett, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fallon, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Favell, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forth, Eric


Benyon, W.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Franks, Cecil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
French, Douglas


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fry, Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gill, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gregory, Conal


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grist, Ian


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Budgen, Nicholas
Hague, William


Burns, Simon
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chapman, Sydney
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Holt, Richard


Cope, Rt Hon John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunter, Andrew





Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Irving, Sir Charles
Rathbone, Tim


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Key, Robert
Rost, Peter


Kilfedder, James
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Knox, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sims, Roger


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Peter
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Lord, Michael
Speller, Tony


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Squire, Robin


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Madel, David
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maginnis, Ken
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mans, Keith
Stokes, Sir John


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mates, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thorne, Neil


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Trimble, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moore, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Morrison, Sir Charles
Viggers, Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Moss, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Mudd, David
Walters, Sir Dennis


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Ward, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wheeler, Sir John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Whitney, Ray


Norris, Steve
Widdecombe, Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wilshire, David


Page, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patnick, Irvine
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Pawsey, James
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Yeo, Tim


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Porter, David (Waveney)



Portillo, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Price, Sir David

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

MINIMUM SENTENCES

'(1) That the minimum sentence for any offender convicted under—

(a) Section 37 Schedule 2 part 1 to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 shall be 10 years.
(b) Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the Firearms Act 1968 and section 10 of the Theft Act 1968 shall be seven years.
(c) Section 8 of the Theft Act 1968 shall be five years.
(d) Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 shall be five years.
(e) Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 shall be four years.
(f) Section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 shall be three years.
(g) Section 7 of the Theft Act 1968 shall be two years.

(2) That the minimum sentences laid down in (e) (f) and (g) shall not necessarily apply to first or second conviction.

(3) That the minimum sentences defined in this section shall apply to section 4(i)(b) of the Criminal Attempts Act 198 1.'—[Mr. Janman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Janman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Before I speak in support of the new clause, I shall define what it means. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand that the wording of the new clause, although it does not say much to the layman, is required in order for it to be included in your selection.
8.15 pm
The new clause states that, for some offences, we should start to introduce in Great Britain the concept of minimum sentences. The crimes referred to under subsection (1) include: (a) rape; (b) serious firearms offences involving the intent to use that firearm to injure or conduct criminal activities or while trespassing and for aggravated burglary; (c) robbery; (d) grievous bodily harm; (e) burglary; (f) assault; and (g) theft. Subsection (3) applies the same minimum sentences (a) to (g) to attempts to commit the same offences.
I shall make the case for the concept of minimum sentences, although I admit that the individual sentences that I have proposed for different crimes are merely my subjective opinion and reflect only my opinion and my mood when I sat down and drafted the new clause. I do not think that I was in a particularly harsh mood when I did so. I admit that the minimum sentences that I have proposed may riot be perfect and are subjective. The reason for introducing the new clause is that we must now enter uncharted waters in our attempts to satisfy the public that the House is serious about doing something about the ever-increasing wave of crime enveloping this country.
I shall take the liberty of giving examples of crimes of which I have been at the receiving end in the past six months. At the beginning of last September my then wife-to-be had her house burgled. In the same autumn my stepson, as he is now—a 15-year-old schoolboy—and his friend were held up at knife-point by a gang of six black youths. The purpose of the mugging was to take my stepson's jacket away, which was successfully accomplished.
When I arrived at the car park at the port of Newhaven on the night before new year's eve at the end of last year, I found that my car had two front wheels missing. To cut a long story short, the wheels were retrieved. Exactly a

month to the day after that incident, the front passenger window of my car was smashed. An attempt had been made to take the phone out of my car. The attempt was unsuccessful, but a considerable amount of damage was caused.
For one family unit, which we became after 29 September last year, to be on the receiving end of four serious—not petty—incidents of criminal activity in less than six months is either a remarkable coincidence or time is catching up with me and I am now suffering because I have not been on the receiving end of much criminal activity for the other 33 years of my life. Perhaps the number of incidents reflects the current state of the nation with regard to law and order and the amount of crime that seriously and adversely affects the daily lives of millions of citizens every year.
Thankfully, the public understand that, however weak the Government are, the Opposition would be, and have consistently been, weaker when in government—I shall make my remarks in that context. We must now, almost out of a sense of frustration, take action that we may not have considered taking before—as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said on new clause I. We should do so not just out of a sense of frustration, but out of a sense of duty because all reasonable avenues and options must be considered.
I know—we touched on the subject when we debated new clause 1—that not only Opposition Members but Conservative Members have always taken the view that Parliament should not interfere with the flexibility of the judiciary. That view is well entrenched in the minds of many colleagues, but perhaps many of them have not taken time to reconsider or reflect on it as circumstances have changed and the crime rate has increased during our lifetime. However, they should reflect on it. Of course, Parliament interferes with the flexibility of the courts in many ways, the most obvious of which is that the House almost always sets a maximum sentence. If someone is given a term of life imprisonment, life itself is the parameter beyond which the court cannot stray, but for many other crimes the House has told courts that they cannot exceed certain sentences. Therefore, it is quite logical for the House to set minimum parameters for the courts as well.

Sir John Wheeler: The whole House will have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend and his family for the misfortunes that have befallen them. His example of criminality perhaps serves to illustrate how we should redouble our efforts in the analysis and prevention of crime rather than on sentencing the minority of offenders who are apprehended. My hon. Friend's point about interfering with the judiciary is crucial. It is not a question of interfering with the judiciary; it is a question of practicality. My hon. Friend may know that there have been attempts in previous generations to impose minimum sentences with which the courts would have to comply. The result in the jury trial cases to which my hon. Friend refers has been that juries have been confronted by the necessity of deciding, on occasions, whether to convict or to acquit, and they have acquitted if convicting meant that a minimum sentence would have to be imposed. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that problem.

Mr. Janman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. Of course, we cannot rely on a single panacea to solve the problem of ever-increasing crime. I agree that we should carefully consider how efficiently the considerable resources that we now give to the police are used. Conservative Members tend sometimes to shower praise on our thin blue line a little over-enthusiastically instead of applying to it the critical eye that we apply to all our other nationalised industries. We need to examine how efficiently the police are managed, how they use their resources and how good they are at delivering the results that we expect.
I do not toss aside lightly my hon. Friend's other point, which would involve the House in giving more consideration to how to implement minimum sentences in certain circumstances and for certain offences. Earlier I said that, because my new clause covers several different offences, the suggested minimum sentences may not be practical. Some of them may be too harsh and might exacerbate the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler). Nevertheless, I want to initiate a debate on the idea of minimum sentencing. If we ever adopted the practice there would be many bridges to cross and difficulties to deal with. This House represents the British people and it is our job to identify what is happening in the country and what people think about ever-increasing crime. So it is up to the House, not the unelected judiciary, to decide the broad parameters of sentencing policy.
At some point we must seriously consider having a stab at solving this problem, so that if people carry out certain types of crime they will know that they face a minimum punishment. At present many people commit crimes without the vaguest idea of what may happen to them, and if they had a slightly more accurate view of the punishment that awaited them, some would stop committing crimes.
I have already admitted that some of the minimum sentences that I have suggested may be too harsh—although some of my colleagues may think them too lenient—but the new clause is an attempt to outline my general philosophy. It includes crimes of a fairly serious nature such as assault, burglary and theft, and I have said that I do not think that minimum sentences should necessarily be imposed for first or second convictions. For this middle category of crimes I would not want to deny courts the choice between imposing a severe sentence on and doing nothing to first or second offenders. That part of my new clause, at least, acknowledges the genuine concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North.
My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have spoken privately about this subject and I believe that he understands my position. We can argue about what minimum sentences should be. If we impose them, other changes in the law may have to be made. If, for instance, my minimum sentence for rape became law we should need to change the law so that it could differentiate between premeditated and unpremeditated rape. I want a minimum sentence only for premeditated rape—for cases in which it is clear that the accused was not led on or did not misunderstand where the evening was leading. However, if someone jumps out from behind a wall and attacks and rapes a woman whom he has never seen before, motivated only by a wish to inflict great physical harm on her and to rape her against her will, I would have no compunction

about legislating to impose a minimum sentence on the offender in question. Whether it should be 10 years or less is a matter for argument.
Neither the House nor the Government can afford to push aside anything that might help in the fight against crime. We need to start re-examining some of our past assumptions. If crime continues to rise, the House will have to set, for some cases, minimum parameters within which the judiciary will have to act.

Mr. Maclennan: The House certainly sympathises with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) because of the disturbing experience of crime to which he and his family have been subjected. However, I regret that he saw fit to begin his remarks by suggesting that there were profound party differences about how to respond to crime, and that it could be assumed that the response of Opposition parties would be weaker. That kind of partisan attack does nothing to strengthen the response of Parliament to the acute problem to which he has drawn attention. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have different views, and within the hon. Member's own party there are different views on minimum sentences.

Mr. Janman: The only reason that I gave examples of what had happened to me and to my family was to show what is happening to others, not just to ask for sympathy, although I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for extending it to me.
The point that I tried to make about the difference between the Government side of the House and the Opposition side was not about minimum sentences as such; I understand that many Government Members would not agree with me on that. If we look at the Divisions on the Criminal Justice Bill 1988, however, and at the Divisions when we are asked to renew the Prevention of Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Act every two years, we will see the facts. However much I may feel that my own party is not strong enough on law and order, it is consistently and immeasurably stronger than the parties on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Maclennan: The test of measures that purport to deal with crime is not whether they are weak or strong but whether they are effective or ineffective. The hon. Member for Thurrock has not addressed that at all in promoting his amendment.
There is another issue of principle that we cannot allow to be elided in this debate—the extent to which we want to usurp the judgment of those faced with crimes in the courts about the circumstances of the particular cases before them. Any one of the offences mentioned in the amendment covers a wide range of circumstances, and the gravity of those offences can vary considerably from case to case. It is not something that the House is in a position to judge.
The hon. Member is quite right to say that the House should be concerned both about sentencing and about appropriate sentences; but we cannot foresee the circumstances facing individual judges in individual cases, so it is inappropriate to establish minimum sentences, which to some extent pre-empt the power of the courts to take account of circumstances which may mitigate the offence.
The hon. Member for Thurrock spoke of the House's willingness to accept a maximum sentence, and sought to equate maximum and minimum; but when one sets a maximum, one is limiting the power of the court to deprive individuals of their liberty, and it is proper for the House to seek to do that. It is not at all analogous with the circumstances in which one does precisely the reverse. The House is rightly concerned about the freedom of the subject, and wants to ensure that judges do not overstep the mark.
Measures have been taken by the Government to enable the Attorney-General to seek to reverse too lenient sentences. I have some reservations about the wisdom of that course of action, but I am prepared to wait and see how it operates. It is a rather dangerous step to allow the Court of Appeal to review a sentence without having heard all the evidence before the original sentencer, and this latest move may prove to be a mistake; but I am at least prepared to give it a chance. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the hon. Member for Thurrock has made out a case for departing from the very long established practice of the criminal justice system in not having minimum sentences.
This approach to the amendment of our substantive law on crime shows what is wrong with our ability as a legislature to deal in a rational and coherent way with the framework of our criminal law. Too often we respond to public disquiet about a particular crime by suggesting that the penalty be increased or a new offence introduced, and we do it in isolation from the whole fabric of the criminal law. That is not the right way to proceed.
The Law Commission has produced a draft codification of the criminal law which seeks to relate offences to one another in degree of gravity. If we were to take the hon. Member's objective seriously, which we should, the proper way to proceed would be for the House to take evidence on the proposed codification and to set up a pre-legislative committee to go through the details carefully, measuring the evidence for each offence. What we should not do is bring our subjective judgment to bear on particular offences, as the hon. Member for Thurrock has done, and then trade one off against the other, within the narrow scope of a limited number of offences.
I realise that the hon. Member simply wished to raise the principle of minimum sentences, but his clause goes further and provides a degree of particularity; one is bound to take it at its face value. I welcome the opportunity that he has given us to discuss the matter. It should not go by without comment from anyone on the Opposition side of the House, because Conservative Back Benchers may sometimes reflect thinking that later emerges down the line from the Government Front Bench, and it would be extremely unfortunate if thinking along the lines expressed by the hon. Member for Thurrock tonight were to emerge as the official line of the Conservative party or of the Government.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Government will consider seriously the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), which he presented in a balanced and effective way. I want them to ask themselves whether it would help to curb crime if people had a clearer idea of what was likely to happen to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock spoke at great length about his experience. I will mention what happened to me last night. I had a discussion with a young lady who had had no payment from income support for

over two weeks. Because she had no money, she explained to me, she had unfortunately had to steal things from shops. The reason for the non-appearance of the money was purely administrative: the payments had been sent to her previous address as the office had not got the new one. What interested me, however, was what she said:
I don't suppose they could do anything to me in these circumstances.
The Minister may think that this is just a casual case. He has very kindly said that he will ask young people what they think would happen to them if they committed a crime; if he does, he will be rather surprised. At a youth club at which I spoke, the general view was that nothing happened on the first offence and that on the second offence one was likely to be promoted on to one of "those funny schemes". The Minister may think that that is nonsense, but a lot of people think this.
What is the argument against having a civic sentence? We heard it with great clarity from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who said that judges' discretion would be interfered with. It is silly to try to make a principle out of this because, as my hon. and learned Friend said, there is already interference. He explained that there were some tables that gave the courts general guidance as to the most appropriate sentence from which they could depart in special circumstances.
Secondly, the Government have taken upon themselves the power to appeal against sentences that they believe are too lenient. That is interference in future cases. Therefore, there is a case for doing something—anything—to give the potential offender clear guidance on what is likely to happen to him. I am sure that if we had such a system, there would be less crime.
As I said when we debated new clause 1, the only evidence that we have is that on capital punishment, which shows overwhelmingly that when we had that deterrent it curbed not only murder but crimes involving the use of firearms. Since the abolition of capital punishment, there have been dramatic changes. There is the great unanswered question about why general crime doubled and murder did not increase while we still had capital punishment. I hope that the Government will think about that.
A fair point has been made about cases where the circumstances are special—for example, when the person who had committed the crime had good reason for doing so, and we should be sympathetic to him. Would not it be possible to have standard sentencing, but to allow the judge to depart from that standard in cases with special circumstances, on the understanding that his determination could be subject to an appeal to a higher court? That escape clause would allow judges some discretion.
The purpose of the new clause is not to put more people in prison for longer but to stop crime. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that an important principle is involved. The arguments against this are not as clear as people think. It is time that we had an experiment, bearing in mind the fact that the only evidence shows that our only mandatory sentence was effective and curbed crime.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I was provoked into speaking by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), who moved his new clause clearly and succinctly. He said that all his dreams of dealing with law and order in manifestos and party political pamphlets over 10 or 15 years had not become reality. Instead, the crime


rate had continued to rise. That ruined his argument that the Labour party was bad on law and order while the Conservative party was good. Whatever else, the crime rate does not show that. It is no respecter of political parties.
In economic circles, the argument is that the Bank of England should be independent because the politicians do not get economic analysis right, so if we extend that argument, it would be better to leave it to somebody else to decide on crime because the politicians have not been good on law and order. It would be as well for the hon. Gentleman to get the facts right, because that would be a help in dealing with the crime rate.
I do not know what it is like in Essex, but the people who suffer from the breakdown of law and order are those who live in inner cities—in areas such as the one that I represent—and who vote for my party and for me. The crimes that take place in Mayfair are different from those that take place in the inner cities. However, there is undoubtedly a problem.
The hon. Member for Thurrock claimed that the Labour party opposed the Northern Ireland prevention of terrorism Act. I was in at the beginning of that Act, when the police were against it. I am in favour of legislation to deal with terrorism—I have to be because it has been part of my being for the past 20 years. That does not mean that I would not vote against, for example, the reintroduction of internment. However, that vote would not mean that I was in favour of terrorism. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that one party is better on law and order than the other will do nothing to prevent crime.
8.45 pm
I do not believe that the judiciary is always right. Therefore, I cannot say that it would be wrong to interfere with sentencing. In recent years, I have been involved too much in dealing with miscarriages of justice. Sentencing is often wrong. There must be changes in the methods of collection of evidence by the police, in forensic procedures and in court procedures, and a better method of appeal than that to the Court of Appeal with so-called new evidence.
Although in principle I do not disapprove of interfering with sentencing, I believe that if there is to be an independent judiciary, these are matters that it should decide. We should not be led by the hon. Member for Thurrock, who believes that all is lost and that all his dreams about dealing with law and order have failed, so we must limit the powers of the judiciary. He was wrong in the first instance in believing that he had got the answer and he is wrong to believe that his new clause, which interferes with the powers of the judiciary, is the answer.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman), but as a practising member of the Bar for many years, I feel that judicial judgment is vital in many cases. Many hon. Members will agree that one cannot set minimum sentences even for serious offences because inevitably in some cases it will be necessary to be lenient. For example, the new clause says:
That the minimum sentence for any offender convicted under … Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 shall be five years.

I have dealt with many cases of violence where the intention to commit grievous bodily harm was proved but the offence would not automatically attract five years.
The big problem with minimum sentences is that discretion will be ratcheted up. The most minor offence will attract the most lenient sentence with the consequent difficulty that, above that, sentences become longer. It will not necessarily mean that the case will be dealt with justly and that is likely to lead to miscarriage of justice.

Mr. Janman: I am disappointed that, almost uniquely, my hon. Friend does not agree with me. I believe right—my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong, because I am not a lawyer—that in some cases there are already minimum sentences. For example, certain categories of murder, of a child or of a police officer, or one involving weapons, attract a minimum sentence, laid down by the Home Secretary, of at least 20 years. The point that I was putting across earlier, which my hon. Friend is rather exaggerating, is that I do not wish to wipe out at a stroke, or even to inflict severe wounding on, the freedom of the courts and judicial flexibililty. I am simply saying that if we are serious about halting crime and providing a real deterrent we may have to have a reduction in that flexibility, albeit a minor one.

Mr. Hind: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says.
I want to take up a point made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I have not lost so much confidence in the judiciary that I feel that we need to impose this upon it. Judges look at each case on its merits. They assess the probation reports and decide from their experience what the sentence should be. The proposed new clause goes too far and is an unnecessary interference with judicial discretion and the independence of the courts. I urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Sheerman: We oppose the new clause because it goes much too far. As I said many times in Committee, the Bill is a three-part measure. Part of it we agree with; the intentions of another part are good, although the ways of carrying out those intentions are not so good; the other third we oppose root and branch. The proposed new clause runs counter to all the proposals for a more progressive criminal justice system. I do not understand how the Government could accept it.
It is always a pleasure to hear the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) on these issues. Like him, I am pragmatic about the judiciary. Sometimes the judiciary gets it wrong and sometimes it gets it right. I do not have an ideological view about the judiciary. We have the right to criticise it and to change the law where necessary. In this case I agree with the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) that a change is unnecessary. The new clause would run counter to the progressive parts of the Bill. Therefore, we hope that the motion will not be pressed to a vote.

Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) has stirred up an interesting debate. I think that he expected the debate to be short, as did other hon. Members, but he has lured a distinguished former Home Secretary and others into speaking. I congratulate him on that.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to try to ensure that those who are convicted get their just deserts. That phrase is in the White Paper—alas, misspelt, but it is there. It is


a phrase which I used in an article which, to show my broad-mindedness, I published in The Guardian this morning—perhaps it also showed the broad-mindedness of The Guardian in publishing an article by a Tory Minister. I am happy to say that The Guardian spelt "deserts" properly throughout.
I share the concern of my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) and of others, expressed so fiercely in Committee, for victims and the importance of sending a clear signal to those who would commit serious and violent offences of the sort which concern my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock so much.
As I explained when we debated new clause 1, it is right that the courts should have much discretion if they are to be able to continue to sentence justly in exceptional cases. On that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). Undoubtedly cases will arise where there are strong mitigating factors and it would be wrong to penalise the offender heavily, if at all. If minimum sentences were set so low as to make allowance for such cases, it would render them meaningless and would give a false impression to the public. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock does not want to render sentences meaningless any more than does my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Both want sentences to be meaningful, as is clear from their proposed new clause.
If minimum sentences were set too high—the judgment of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock has led him to the high end of the range—it could result in juries acquitting more guilty men and women to avoid excessive punishment. That is always one thing that worries me about minimum sentences. More serious offenders are being sentenced to much longer periods in gaol, and I welcome that, but the Government think it right to retain discretion at the lower end.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock will be aware, the basis of that approach is that Parliament sets the maximum sentences and courts have discretion within the maximum. Of course, there are occasions when it is judged by the courts themselves that they have got sentences wrong. That is why the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in which my hon. Friend was involved, gave a new power to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to refer back to the Court of Appeal sentences which were allegedly over-lenient. He has clone that on 24 occasions, and on 20 occasions the Court of Appeal has increased the sentences. That has been a substantial guide to judges in the lower courts.
I hope that the use of the new power will go some way to allay my hon. Friend's concern. None the less, he has raised interesting and important points. He referred to sentencing practice in other western European countries. While I cannot advise the House to accept the new clause—I hope that my hon. Friend, on reflection, will consider withdrawing it—I think that it is important to collect more information about the effects of minimum sentences in other countries so that we can examine, in a way which neither he nor I have been able to today, the case for minimum sentences.
With that undertaking, which I am happy to give to my hon. Friend, I hope that he will on consideration think it right to seek leave to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Janman: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Mr. Janman: We have had an interesting debate. I should like to make one or two comments on the speech of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I am complimented by the fact that he has taken time to listen to the debate and to react to what I said.
I think that what the right hon. Gentleman said strengthens my case. He was right when he talked about whether we should have an independent Bank of England. He implied that over a 30 to 40-year period both parties in government have been unable to sustain not an overtight, but a disciplined monetary policy, although there are fine examples over a short period where that did not happen, such as in 1969 when the Labour Government had a balanced budget. It is interesting to note that some categories of crime are plateauing out, given the effects of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but on crime, too, neither party when in government has been able to change the trend, just as, with fine exceptions, they have been unable to have a disciplined monetary approach.
This is the crux of my case. Every hon. Member, irrespective of his party, must observe the ever-increasing crime rate, which affects the very people whom the right hon. Gentleman cites. My constituency was once described—not by me—as "an inner-city area with trees". Most of the crime, which tends to be burglary and theft, takes place in the most municipalised areas, which are also the poorest areas—people robbing their neighbours down the road. In my view, that increases the need to take the matter seriously.
I understand my right hon. Friend the Minister's position, and I am pleased to hear that he intends to investigate whether instances of minimum sentencing occur abroad, and whether they have a positive effect on the crime rate. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

PERIODIC REVIEWS OF DETENTION

'A prisoner whose case has been reviewed by the Board under section (Power to release life prisoners) or section 32(4) below and who has been refused release may apply to the Board for further review of his sentence—

(a) on the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the Board's decision refusing his release; and
on the expiry of any subsequent period of 12 months.'.—[ Mr. Sheerman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9 pm

Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take the following:

New Clause 7—

Power to release life prisoners—

'(1) The Secretary of State shall refer the case of a life prisoner to the Board for review as soon as the offender has served the punitive element of his sentence.

(2) After consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, and with the trial judge if available, the Board may direct the release of a life prisoner whose case is referred to it under subsection (1) above.

(3) In determining whether to direct the release of a life prisoner, the Board shall have regard to—

(a) the need to protect the public from serious harm from him; and
(b) the desirability of preventing the commission by him of further offences and of securing his rehabilitation.

(4) The Board may direct the release of a life prisoner under this section—

(a) on licence; or
(b) unconditionally.

(5) Where the Board directs the release of a life prisoner on licence it may also direct the length of time for which the licence is to remain in force.

(6) If the Board gives no direction as to the length of a licence under subsection (5) above, it shall review the licence—
(a) before the expiry of a period of five years from the date of the Board's decision to release the offender on licence; and
(b) before the expiry of any subsequent period of three years
and shall on any such review either terminate the licence or direct the length of time for which it is to remain in force.

(7) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner unconditionally as soon as his licence has ceased to be in force unless he has previously been recalled to prison under subsection (1) or (2) of section 32 below.

(8) In this section "punitive element" means the sentence of imprisonment which the Crown Court, or on appeal the Court of Appeal, shall state in open court as being the sentence it would have passed if it had not passed a sentence of imprisonment for life, whether under requirement of law or otherwise.

(9) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life.'.

New Clause 8—

Procedure of Board on review of life sentences—

'(1) The Lord Chancellor may make rules with respect to the making of applications to the Board under section (Periodic reviews of detention) above and to the proceedings of the Board in cases arising under that section and section (Power to release life prisoners) above.

(2) Rules made under this section may in particular make provision—
(a) for regulating the means by which information relevant to an application or review may be obtained by or furnished to the Board;
(b) for enabling the Board to dispose of an application without a formal hearing where such a hearing is not requested by the applicant;
(c) for regulating the person by whom an applicant may, if he so desires be represented for the purposes of his application;
(d) for making available to an applicant copies of any documents obtained by or furnished to the Board in connection with his application, and a statement of the stubstance of any oral information so obtained or furnished, except where the Board considers it undesirable in the interests of justice to do so;
(e) for requiring the Board, to furnish reasons for any decision given by it in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the rules;

The following amendments: No. 71, in clause 26, page 19, line 18 at beginning insert
'Except in cases to which section (Procedure of Board on review of life sentences) applies and.'
No. 72, in page 19, line 21 after 'or', insert

'subject to section (Power to release life prisoners) and section (Periodic reviews of detention) below,'.

No. 73, in page 19, line 23, at beginning insert
'Except in cases to which section (Procedure of Board on review of life sentences) applies,'.

No. 74, in page 20, line 17, leave out subsection (2).

No. 75, in page 20, line 20, leave out subsection (3).

No. 76, in page 20, line 23, leave out subsection (4).

No. 77, in clause 30, page 20, line 41, leave out subsection (3).

No. 78, in clause 32, page 21, line 34, after 'recommended', insert 'or directed'.

No. 79, in page 21, line 38, after 'recommendation', insert 'or direction'.

No. 80, in page 22, line 5, after 'recommends', insert 'or directs'.

No. 81, in clause 41, page 26, line 10, leave out `28(4)' and insert
`(Power to release life prisoners (9))'.

Mr. Sheerman: The new clauses and amendments seek to implement the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell on 25 October 1990 in regard to life-sentence prisoners. We consider that judgment very important. We had expected the Government to use the Bill as a vehicle to bring them into line with it and we were very concerned when they found that they could not do so. The new clauses and amendments would bring the United Kingdom fully into line with the judgment. We think that important because this country, especially under the present Government, has a poor record with the European Court of Human Rights. I believe that more judgments have been made against us than against any other European Community member country and, in the case that I cited, every opportunity was provided for speedy compliance with the court's judgment.
The court held that persons given a discretionary life sentence were entitled to have their sentences reviewed at the end of the tariff period and at periodic intervals thereafter. If they were released on licence and the licence was revoked, they were also entitled to have their re-detention reviewed by a court.
The case follows an earlier British case, Weeks v. United Kingdom, decided on 2 March 1987, in which the court held for the first time that that principle applied. In the Weeks case, the court found that the Parole Board was an independent body but that its procedures were not sufficiently court-like and that it did not possess sufficient powers in respect of the sentences. Nor did it have the power to terminate the sentence if it formed the view that the personality disorder that had justified a life sentence had ended.
Our new clauses would give the Parole Board the power to release life-sentence prisoners as soon as the punitive element of the sentence had been served. It would also allow the board to provide a periodic review of detention and would give the Lord Chancellor the authority to institute a set of rules that would enable the board to become a court for the purposes of the convention. The new clauses have the support of two highly distinguished organisations in the field of human rights, Justice and Liberty.
In Committee, we argued long and hard about the role of the pressure groups—or interest groups—which have been quoted in support sometimes of one side of the argument, sometimes of the other; but it should be noted


that those two organisations, like many voices in the judiciary—and in another place—are strongly in favour of our proposals. It is also important that the Government accept the European Court's findings against this country and comply with its rulings.
Our new clauses form a package. The first gives the Parole Board the power to release life-sentence prisoners as soon as the punitive element of a sentence has been served. At present, in every life sentence case, the judge sets the punitive element in a private communication with the Home Secretary.
I just looked over my shoulder to see whether the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), was still with us. It is extraordinary that the offender should be unaware of the length of the period concerned. The new clause requires the trial judge to state the period in open court. It seems to us common sense—common humanity—for the prisoner who has been found guilty to know what that element of his sentence is. If the sentence is appealed against, the appeal court will be able to consider the punitive element and determine its length. It is ridiculous that a prisoner should not know how his sentence is composed.
The European Court of Human Rights discussed at some length the distinction between the punitive and the security aspects of a life sentence. I quote from The Times Law Report on the case of Thynne:
In the court's view, each of the applicants was sentenced to life imprisonment because, in addition to the need for punishment, they were considered to be suffering from a mental or personality disorder and to be dangerous and in need of treatment …
The court noted that the discretionary life sentence had clearly developed in English law as a measure to deal with mentally unstable and dangerous offenders. Such sentences were composed of both a punitive and a security element"—
we understand that, and do not demur from it—
the latter being designed to confer on the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permitted the prisoner's release …
The factors of mental instability and dangerousness were susceptible to change over the passage of time, and new issues of lawfulness could arise.
Under the new clause, the Parole Board would review life sentence cases once the punitive part had been served and it would have the power to release the offender. In making its decision, it would have to have regard to the risk factor—the need to protect the public from harm and to prevent the commission of further offences. It would, of course, consider the personality factors that had led to the original imposition of the life sentence. The board would have power to release the prisoner on licence or to bring the sentence to an end by unconditional release. It could determine the length of the licence, but if it did not set a term, it would have to review the licence at intervals.
New clause 6 deals with periodic reviews of detention. This, too, follows a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, which stated that a person serving a discretionary life sentence must be entitled to periodic review of the detention to see whether the factors in the prisoner's personality that gave rise to it still exist. It seems to be common humanity and common sense that if, over a long period, the personality of the prisoner changes—either under treatment or, as is often the case, without treatment—the circumstances of that prisoner may be adjudged, on the basis of independent psychiatric advice, to have changed. This matter was discussed in the debate

on a previous amendment. The European Court of Human Rights believes that in such cases review should be possible.
New clause 8 deals with the procedure of the board on the review of life sentences. It would give the Lord Chancellor the authority to institute a set of rules enabling the board to become a court for the purposes of the convention. In other words, the court would have to meet the requirements of due process established in the convention, such as the right to representation, the right to bring evidence and to test the other side's evidence, and the right to ask the board to give reasons for its decision. It was the absence of such procedures that led the court, in the case of Weeks, as well as in the Thynne and other cases, to decide that the board could not be regarded as a court for the purposes of the convention. We believe that the Lord Chancellor should be given the ability to put that right.
Finally, there is the amendment that would result in the omission of subsection (3) of clause 30. It would remove the provision that a licence must last for the life of the prisoner. This would also be consequential on the judgment. Once the personality factors have ceased to exist, the justification for the sentence ceases, and it becomes unlawful in terms of the convention. Therefore, the board must have power to set a period for the licence that is less than life.
During the Committee stage we had a long debate on matters similar to these. The Minister will have noted that the amendments, as drafted, are not confined to discretionary life sentences. The House, too, will understand that. It is a deliberate decision on our part. This is what the European judgment is all about. Such sentences now constitute about 25 per cent. of life sentences in England and Wales and less than 5 per cent. in Scotland.
The amendments extend to all life sentences. There are two reasons for that. In their argument before the European Court of Human Rights the Government maintained that it would be wrong in principle and impractical in operation for two sets of rules to be operated by the Parole Board, depending upon whether the life sentence was mandatory or discretionary. That is good logic and common sense. We agree with those sentiments and consider that, as a matter of principle, all questions of detention and release should rest with the judiciary. It is difficult to think of circumstances in which the expert assessment of risk—now made by the Parole Board—should be overruled by the Minister and his officials. We mean nothing personal, but Ministers come and go and Secretaries of State change rapidly. We believe that the decision should be made by a court-like authority—the Parole Board.
By including mandatory lifers the amendments would implement the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment published in July 1989. That came down broadly in favour of taking the power of release out of the hands of the Minister and putting it into those of an independent tribunal. I do not want to bore the House with the detail we discussed in Committee, but we have heard the views of the good, the wise and the experienced—I am looking at the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).
The final argument in favour is that the principles of the convention set out by the European court in the cases of Weeks, Thynne and others about the nature of liberty


make it clear that once a life-serving prisoner has been released, whatever the initial basis for the life sentence, his convention rights are restored. That means that liberty cannot be taken away from the prisoner without due process before a court. Thus, on the revocation of a licence, every life prisoner is entitled to proper judicial process before the board, which must be given power to determine the question of release.
Running through all the amendments is a clear logic and rationale. We have built on the European court's judgment to bring the system into a much more coherent and consistent form. It is imperative that the Government comply with the European court's ruling. They have no excuse for delay. In Committee the Minister said:
I am inclined neither to accept the amendments nor to say at this stage when or how we shall implement the Strasbourg judgment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 January 1991; c. 337.]
That is not good enough. The Minister justified his position by saying that the subject matter was, in part, sub judice. That was misleading. It was always a red herring as the judgment in the case is related to internal laws in Britain, not to European rulings, and, in any event, it has now been dealt with.
Interestingly, the Minister's main reason for delay was that there was insufficient time to reflect on the court's decision. That will not hold water, either. It is true that in the Thynne case judgment was given in October 1990, but the judgment in Weeks, which covers much the same ground, was in March 1987. What is more, in the Thynne case the European Court of Human Rights drew up its report expressing the opinion that there had been a violation of the convention as early as September 1989. Therefore, the Government have had plenty of time to think the issues through.
The problem will not go away. We know of at least three cases in which prisoners are taking the Government to the European court on the same issue. We are raising the new clauses to give the Government yet another chance to show that they will comply with the European court judgments and we hope that they will provide the timetable under which they propose to proceed.
In this place we are all familiar with the doctrine of the "unright" time. The Government say that they will do something but, "This is not the right Bill, the right time, or the right month." I hope that I have made the case that the Government have a responsibility to bring this country into line with the European Court of Human Rights. What is the purpose of such a court if, time after time, we fail to comply and drag our feet even when we do comply? This Bill deals with precisely that range of matters and there is no excuse for any further delay.

Mr. John Greenway: I shall not detain the House for long because, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, we discussed this subject at some length in Committee. However, because of constraints on time, I did not participate in that debate.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield on discretionary sentences. However, I am not convinced that he made his case on mandatory sentences. The new clauses will incorporate both forms of sentence. I hear what he said about it being four or five months since the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Gunnell, Wilson and Thynne.

It is argued that the Government have had time to consider that case, but I do not believe that the public will expect them to rush into decisions that affect our freedom, peace and security. It is all very well to talk about what the European court said about that case, but we must not lose sight of the fact that those men were convicted of nasty multiple rapes and buggery.
9.15 pm
When mandatory sentences are passed, public concern about the need to be protected from murderers becomes even more important. Less than two months ago, we had an interesting debate on capital punishment. Many British people support capital punishment, but say that if we are not to have capital punishment life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment. The Government should have much time to think about how to deliver that requirement, which the public have expressed for a long time, and meet the requirements of the European court. Clearly, we must achieve a proper balance between the liberty and rights of the prisoner and the need to protect the public from dangerous criminals, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to take a more cautious view than did the hon. Member for Huddersfield.
No hon. Member has the right to say, "This is our view and there is no other." We owe it to the British people to ensure that our system of criminal justice and sentencing are adequate to protect the public from people who are a danger to society. I am not sure how we can balance that need with the requirement to state the punitive element of a sentence when it is passed, which seemed to be what the hon. Member for Huddersfield was urging.
As we are so keen to achieve the right balance, it is fair that I should put both points of view. I asked the governor of Full Sutton prison, who has many years' experience in the prison service, for his view on parole and the automatic right to parole for long-sentence prisoners. He said that, in many ways, it is helpful to prison discipline and to the rehabilitation of offenders if they are aware of the punitive element of their sentence.
If we were dealing only with discretionary life sentences, perhaps the hon. Member for Huddersfield would have a point. As I said, we are not. We are dealing with discretionary and mandatory sentences. Even after the Bill has been given Royal Assent and is in force, there will still need to be a debate on mandatory sentences. The European court has not ruled on that matter, so the Government should be under no pressure to take precipitate action on it. For that reason, if for no other, the House should reject the new clause.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: It may seem curious that, within weeks of my reaching the 25th anniversary of my arrival in this place, I now wish to make a maiden speech. This will be my maiden speech on a Criminal Justice Bill. I ask for my right hon. and hon. Friends' forgiveness when I tread into this strange new legislative territory.
I am prompted by a constituency case which reveals the unjustness of the present system in determining life sentences. It involves a young man called Wayne Smart. The case has been the subject of lengthy correspondence with a succession of Home Office Ministers since 1986. I sought then, and I seek now, to get natural justice.
The case involves some terrible events that led to the death of a local person. I do not wish to rehearse the


circumstances, save to say that almost everyone who knows the young person and the background has found these events totally out of character. The parents, the young man and obviously the family of the person who was killed have been shattered by the experience. We are all baffled to know what led to it.
Wayne Smart had no record of previous violent offences—his only previous offence was driving a car without a licence. I received a petition containing more than 600 names from people living in the community where the murdered person and Wayne Smart lived. The petition pleaded with the Home Secretary for leniency. By any standards in my constituency experience, it was extraordinary to receive such a petition.
I presented the petition to Home Office Ministers in the hope that it would play an important part in determining the young man's length of sentence. That was the beginning of my long contact with a labyrinth of procedures. The case preceded the Handscomb decision in March 1987, which allows counsel to make a plea of mitigation to the trial judge after a person has been found guilty of murder. In this case, there was no opportunity to make a plea of mitigation.
When I started on the road of trying to find out how Home Office Ministers would decide the length of sentence that Wayne Smart would serve, I found that there were five stages, the most important of which was the Home Office decision as to when a case should first be reviewed by a local review committee—the so-called tariff decision. In the vast majority of cases, and certainly in this one, that is when the most important decision is taken in determining the length of sentence that a person will serve.
However, as the law stands, a prisoner is permitted virtually no right to make representations; nor does anyone have a right to make representations on his behalf to know on what basis and in what manner a decision on the length of sentence is made. As a layman who is unfamiliar with this aspect of criminal justice, it strikes me as utterly contrary to the principle of natural justice that one is not allowed to know the basis on which such a vital decision is taken.
In October 1989, with increasing concern about trying to work out the labyrinth of procedures, I wrote to the Home Secretary of the day, and I received a letter from the Minister's predecessor. I made a simple request. I asked him to send me, as the representative of the person and family concerned, information about the basis upon which that person's sentence was determined. In a letter dated October 1989, I was refused that information.
The interesting aspect of the matter is that the decision is not a judicial one—a point that my hon. Friends have been making—but a Home Office executive decision. An elected representative in this House or anyone else representing someone such as Wayne Smart is not entitled even to know the information, evidence or factors that are taken into account when determining the length of time that a person will serve in prison. Given that that is a Home Office executive decision, and given that it is a matter of profound importance to the person concerned—the Wayne Smart case preceded the Handscomb case, so there was no opportunity even to make a plea of mitigation to the court—such cases show that the existing procedures are contrary to natural justice.
I hope that my brief intervention in such a debate as this points out a fundamental flaw in the procedures, and that it will be heeded by Ministers and taken into account. As

others have said, there is already widespread criticism of Home Office Ministers' executive power to determine the length of time that a person such as Mr. Wayne Smart should spend in prison. I hope that, irrespective of the many arguments that have been put, the Minister will take a simple message from a simple case and review the procedure and the law behind it.

Mr. Lawrence: I cannot follow the constituency case that was raised by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). However, as it was his "maiden speech" and hon. Members are supposed to say something nice about a maiden speaker, I applaud his opportunism in raising a constituency issue at this time rather than in a much later Adjournment debate in the normal way. The debate is about life sentences——

Mr. Rowlands: So is the case to which I referred.

Mr. Lawrence: I wanted my comment to be nice. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would consider that I was being complimentary. I am sorry that he does not. Perhaps we may talk about it later.
I do not have any strong feelings on the new clauses. I do not think that there is much wrong with periodic reviews of life sentences. I should hope that they would be reasonably frequent—perhaps even annual—for humanitarian reasons. Of course, there is always the danger, which must be avoided, that we have so many reviews that expectations are falsely raised. That is a cruel thing to happen to someone who is serving a life sentence or any other lengthy sentence.
9.30 pm
In response to the speech of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), first, I do not accept that this country has a poor record of compliance with the human rights rulings in Europe. I know that that is often said by Opposition Members and by so-called "freedom groups", but it simply is not so. I do not want to spend time rehearsing the basis of the argument, because those points will no doubt be made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. However, we were among the first to accept the European Court rulings and we have been assiduous in following them. Having entered the field early, of course we have more rulings against us than some other European countries who came to the obligations of the European Court as Johnnies-come-lately.
Also, it is not sufficiently realised that we have international responsibility for some of the islands around this country, such as the Isle of Man and the Channel islands. The Isle of Man got into trouble with the European Court over corporal punishment. If that issue had been taken up by this place, it would have received rather more support at the time than it enjoys this evening, with the House as currently constituted.
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will not be allowed to get away with that observation. As a Conservative, I am proud of the fact that we are astute and assiduous when complying with the human rights requirements, but I leave the rest of that issue to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
Secondly, nor do I understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying when he called upon us to comply with the European Court ruling which, as I recall it—my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—applies


only to discretionary sentences. Life imprisonment is a mandatory sentence. It therefore follows that the European Court ruling does not apply to this country——

Mr. Sheerman: Perhaps I did not present my case as articulately as usual, but I clearly made the point that our provisions extended from that judgment in order to broaden the base to cover both sorts of life sentence.

Mr. Lawrence: If that is so, I quite understand why my right hon. Friend is taking her time on behalf of the Government to accept the new clauses. If the hon. Gentleman is rolling together what would be an obligation under discretionary sentences with mandatory sentences, that matter obviously requires consideration. However, it cannot be said that we are somehow not in conformity with an obligation laid down by the European Court. If the hon. Gentleman expects that we shall substitute discretionary sentences for mandatory sentences for life imprisonment, I for one hope that he will be disappointed.
That is all that I wanted to say. Even in a brief debate, hon. Members should not be allowed to make wholly unacceptable points without expecting to have them dealt with. There is some merit in my right hon. Friend's obvious reluctance to accept the new clauses. I shall listen with great interest—as I always do—to her reasons, bearing in mind that we must be careful and humane about the way in which we deal with people who are incarcerated in life imprisonment, certainly until such time as we improve the standard of our prisons throughout the country, so that they are more decent places in which our prisoners can abide.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): It is perfectly understandable that we should debate this new clause this evening, just as we debated it in Committee. Our debate is also understandable in the light of the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on Gunnell, Thynne and Wilson. Clearly, this matter should be raised and is of concern to Opposition Members. Equally, the Select Committee in the House of Lords has made recommendations on the way in which tariffs are set and sentences are reviewed when the punitive part of sentences has expired.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). I also listened carefully to the case put by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). I am not familiar with it, and I trust that he will excuse me if I do not go into detail, but I carefully noted what he said, and I clearly understood the point that he made. Of course, I will take it back to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his consideration.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield is well aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary takes the European Court of Human Rights judgment very seriously indeed. I know that the hon. Gentleman fully understands that my right hon. Friend has been in post for not quite two months. The implications of the judgment are a serious responsibility for a Home Secretary. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, the issue is of great importance, and therefore requires a great deal of consideration.
For that reason, I can assure Opposition Members that, as soon as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has

given the matter his full consideration and finished the discussions in which he is engaged, he will come to the House and give the results to Parliament immediately.
For the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale gave, it is impossible for us to accept the new clause. It rolls up mandatory and discretionary life sentences. In his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for Huddersfield knew that we could not accept the new clause. The European Court of Human Rights decision related only to discretionary matters and did not touch on mandatory matters. That considerably broadens and extends the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in coming to a decision. It is less of a problem to consider the discretionary life sentence implications of the European Court of Human Rights decision.
Equally, the new clause would mean that the criteria that the Parole Board has to follow would have to be considerably tightened in order to meet the requirements of justice in this country. It is for those reasons, but at the same time assuring Opposition Members that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will come to a decision, that I ask the hon. Member for Huddersfield to withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Sheerman: The Minister knows from the dialogue that we have had in the past few weeks in Committee that I am not satisfied by that response. She also knows that she cannot get away with sidestepping the issue by saying that it is our fault that she cannot accept the new clause because we have rolled up the two issues. As we all know, the Government could probably have unrolled them by tabling their own amendments, making a clear break between discretionary and mandatory life sentences.
Since the first case in 1987, the Government have had plenty of time. We cannot excuse the new Home Secretary. We cannot drag our feet. There must have been good advice from the Department over the long period since 1987 and for half the past year. Unfortunately, we must divide the House, because we need to push the point as far as we can at this stage.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 279.

Division No. 73]
[9.40 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Allen, Graham
Buckley, George J.


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cartwright, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clay, Bob


Battle, John
Clelland, David


Beckett, Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beggs, Roy
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Corbett, Robin


Bellotti. David
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Crowther, Stan


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cryer, Bob


Bermingham, Gerald
Cummings, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boateng, Paul
Dalyell, Tam


Boyes, Roland
Darling, Alistair


Bradley, Keith
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Don






Dobson, Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Doran, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Eadie, Alexander
Martlew, Eric


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Meacher, Michael


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Meale, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Michael, Alun


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fearn, Ronald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fisher, Mark
Morgan, Rhodri


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mullin, Chris


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Fraser, John
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fyfe, Maria
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Parry, Robert


George, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Golding, Mrs Llin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gordon, Mildred
Prescott, John


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Randall, Stuart


Grocott, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hardy, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Richardson, Jo


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robertson, George


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Rooker, Jeff


Henderson, Doug
Rooney, Terence


Hinchliffe, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Rowlands, Ted


Home Robertson, John
Ruddock, Joan


Hood, Jimmy
Sheerman, Barry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Short, Clare


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Ingram, Adam
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Janner, Greville
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Soley, Clive


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Steinberg, Gerry


Leadbitter, Ted
Strang, Gavin


Leighton, Ron
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Lewis, Terry
Trimble, David


Lightbown, David
Turner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Vaz, Keith


Livingstone, Ken
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Walley, Joan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Loyden, Eddie
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McAllion, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Wigley, Dafydd


McCartney, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wilson, Brian


McFall, John
Winnick, David


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


McKelvey, William
Worthington, Tony


Maclennan, Robert
Wray, Jimmy


McMaster, Gordon



McNamara, Kevin
Tellers for the Ayes:


McWilliam, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Ken Eastham.


Madden, Max





NOES


Adley, Robert
Alison, Rt Hon Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Allason, Rupert


Alexander, Richard
Amos, Alan





Arbuthnot, James
Franks, Cecil


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Sir Thomas
French, Douglas


Ashby, David
Fry, Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, David
Gardiner, Sir George


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Batiste, Spencer
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Bellingham, Henry
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bendall, Vivian
Gorst, John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Benyon, W.
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gregory, Conal


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grist, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ground, Patrick


Body, Sir Richard
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hague, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hannam, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayward, Robert


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Buck, Sir Antony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Budgen, Nicholas
Hill, James


Burns, Simon
Hind, Kenneth


Butler, Chris
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butterfill, John
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carrington, Matthew
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Churchill, Mr
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jack, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Janman, Tim


Conway, Derek
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James 
Kilfedder, James


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Curry, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Day, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Knox, David


Dicks, Terry
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dover, Den
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Eggar, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lilley, Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Favell, Tony
Lord, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fishburn, John Dudley
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maclean, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick






Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Malins, Humfrey
Sims, Roger


Mans, Keith
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maples, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Marland, Paul
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marlow, Tony
Speed, Keith


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Speller, Tony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mates, Michael
Squire, Robin


Maude, Hon Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steen, Anthony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Moate, Roger
Stokes, Sir John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David 


Morrison, Sir Charles
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thorne, Neil


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Portillo, Michael
Ward, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Price, Sir David
Warren, Kenneth


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Watts. John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, John
Wheeler, Sir John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Whitney, Ray


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Widdecombe, Ann


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wilshire, David


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rost, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wood, Timothy


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sayeed, Jonathan
Yeo, Tim


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shelton, Sir William
Tellers for the Noes:


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Tom Sackville.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12

AMENDMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967

'After subsection (1A) of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1B) In subsection (1) above 'relevant period' includes any period served in custody in any foreign jurisdiction awaiting extradition to this country where there is in existence at that time a treaty obligation for extradition between that country and the United Kingdom".'.—[Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is not the most publicised of our debates and I doubt whether it will be the longest, but I am gratified to see that it has attracted the biggest audience in the Chamber of any debate so far——

Mr. Neil Kinnock: And of the highest quality.

Mr. Archer: Indeed.
We are returning to a measure that we discussed in Committee. I am grateful to Prisoners Abroad for having drawn attention to what is clearly an anomaly. Before 1967, when a judge was imposing a custodial sentence on someone who had spent a period in custody while on remand, he "took that into account". He said to the offender, "I take into account the fact that you have spent this period in custody."
In 1967 the position was changed. Section 67 of the Act of that year formalised it. The arithmetic was done for the judge. Provided that the time was spent in custody in respect of that offence, the time was formally deducted from whatever sentence was pronounced by the judge. But no similar provision was made for someone who had been apprehended abroad and who had spent time in custody there awaiting extradition. That situation still obtains.
As a result, if two people are tried at the same time for the same offence but one has been returned from abroad while the other has been in custody in this country on remand, they will be dealt with differently. In the one case the judge will pass the sentence appropriate to the offence and the time spent in custody will be deducted administratively from it; in the other, the judge will have to do the arithmetic—so he will pass two different sentences for the same offence. Experts in the law may not be surprised by that, but when it is reported it will sound very strange to the public. It is clearly anomalous.
I ventured to raise the subject in Committee, where the Minister said that there was a problem. I have noticed that in most Committees in which Home Office Ministers lead for the Government there is a problem with almost everything that we venture to raise. Perfectly straightforward reforms crying out for action always manage to attract problems.
I really commend the ingenuity of the Home Office in finding a problem for every solution. On this occasion, the Minister said that the problem lay with the definition of "custody", because custody can be anything from lying in a dark, dismal and damp cell without access to anyone from the outside world, to house arrest, where people live in their comfortable villas and all that happens is that they are forbidden to move away. That I fully understand. What I do not understand is why it is thought that the Home Office, with all its resources, should not be in a better position to resolve the matter than the judge, if only because the Home Office has time beforehand in which to do it, whereas the judge will have to do it on the spot. I therefore venture to raise the matter again in the hope that the Minister will have had further thoughts about it.
The Minister said in Committee that there was no real problem for the judge: the defendant could tell him what had happened, and he could take it from there. I am not wholly clear why the defendant cannot tell the administrative authorities what has happened. The one thing that I am fairly certain of is that, if we have to rely on the defendant in the dock to tell the judge what happened, when the judge has no means of checking, it will hardly be conducive to the cause of truth.
When the Minister says that the defendant's lawyers can find out the circumstances in which he was detained, I wonder if the Minister has given any realistic thought to what happens when his lawyers are acting on legal aid. If they spend a lot of time trying to find out what happened in some foreign part, I suspect that they will want to be paid for it; and I suspect that, when they apply to be paid by the legal aid fund, they will be very disappointed—and this will get around.
It would be very much better if problems of this kind were resolved by the Home Office rather than by the judge on the instant in the court. If that were so, we would not have this anomaly between treatment of prisoners detained on remand in this country and that of prisoners detained abroad and awaiting extradition.
It would be a great event if, just for once, the Home Office listened to a good idea and, without searching for difficulties, agreed to act on it and put matters right. The Minister could be the first of her kind if she seized that opportunity tonight.

Mrs. Rumbold: The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) makes a very persuasive case to the House and it is always a pleasure to hear him do so. I found it, as always, interesting to listen to his argument, which is that the time that people have spent on remand in custody in this country is taken into consideration in the sentence whereas, at present, this is not the case when the custody has been abroad. Very properly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the positions of the respective offenders are not always comparable, and different arrangements can, I think, be justified to take account of different circumstances.
The right hon. and learned Member is aware, I am certain, of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which makes it clear that remand time is relevant only when it is directly connected with any proceedings relating to the sentence that it affects. That is an important principle and it should be reflected in the way in which foreign custody is treated.
It is a little more difficult, as the right hon. and learned Member pointed out, to determine precisely what foreign custody means, because it can vary from one type of custody to its opposite, from a dank cell in a prison somewhere to house custody. The definitions need to be looked at carefully. A variety of factors need to be considered before a decision to reduce the sentence to be served in this country can properly be made. Therefore, it is not right to extend section 67 to take account of foreign custody.
However, the Court of Appeal has made it clear that judges should consider reducing a sentence to give credit for time spent in foreign custody, and that is a sensible and practical arrangement. The judgment about those matters——

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mrs. Rumbold: That seems to be a sensible and practical arrangement. A judgment about these matters by the sentencing judge, having regard to the facts of the case

before him at the time of the sentence, is the logical way to go about things. I note the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comments about the position of the case as it is presented to the judges, and the importance of taking that into account when the matter is taken forward.
It is unfortunate that I cannot grant the right hon. and learned Gentleman's dearest wish and agree to the new clause. In Committee, my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking to reflect further on the matter, and said that the Government would, if necessary, introduce an amendment or new clause to ensure that nothing in the Bill prevented the courts from using their existing powers to reduce sentence length and to take account of time served abroad awaiting extradition. Such an amendment would also serve to bring to the attention of defendants, their legal representatives and the courts the existence of the power. My right hon. Friend has not forgotten the undertaking, and will think about the matter further in the light of this debate.

Mr. Archer: I am grateful for the last few remarks made by the right hon. Lady but, as I said in Committee, however welcome the Minister's undertaking, it bore little relationship to my proposal. It may be that, when the Minister is reflecting on the other matter, he will reflect also on my proposal. For that reason, and because I always live in hope, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

LIFE SENTENCE FOR MURDER

'In section 1(1) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, for the word "sentenced" there shall be substituted the word "liable".'.—[Mr. Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Again, we return to a theme that we discussed in Committee and earlier today, although we are dealing with a different aspect of life sentences. The new clause is about mandatory life sentences for murder. Earlier this evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said, when moving new clause 6, that he was taking together mandatory life sentences and discretionary ones. That caused a certain amount of muddle in the mind of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
This time, we are all clear. We are talking about mandatory life sentences. The issue is not whether they should be available to the court as a means of disposing of the appropriate cases, but whether there should be no other course open to the court, whatever the circumstances. I believe that this came about—again the hon. and learned Member for Burton said something about this—because it used to be thought that murder was a unique offence and therefore required a unique penalty. That used to be the death penalty. The death penalty was not unique to murder. What was unique was that the death penalty was mandatory. There were very few other offences for which any penalty was mandatory. When in 1965 the death penalty for murder was abolished, it was felt that any alternative penalty should also be unique.

Mr. John Patten: indicated dissent.

Mr. Archer: The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. If he wishes to intervene, I am more than willing to give way, because I am not sure which of my statements he is challenging.
What I was saying was that when in 1965 the death penalty was abolished for murder it was felt that the alternative penalty should be unique. The alternative penalty was life imprisonment, but that was not unique to murder, as we have heard this evening. There are discretionary life penalties for other offences. What was unique, again, was that it was mandatory. No other course is open to the court, whatever the situation, whatever the mitigation.
It is a curious concept because everyone knows that the circumstances of offences of murder vary enormously from the savage killing of a total stranger for gain or to get a sick kick, to a crime passionel by a heartbroken spouse, having discovered that his or her partner has been unfaithful, or the action of someone terminating the life of a terminally sick, close relative—the sort of tragedies that we heard about in some of our earlier debates.
Whether we believe that murder merits only a life sentence depends largely on how we formulate the question. Last year a Gallup poll was conducted for BBC2's "Public Eye" programme. The first question asked was:
Do you think that there should be a mandatory life sentence for murder?
There was a curious result; 47 per cent. of those questioned said yes, 47 per cent. said no, and the others did not know. So there was a dead heat. The same people were then asked:
Do you think that there should be a mandatory life sentence for someone who terminates the life of a terminally-ill relative?
Only 10 per cent. said yes.
A particular problem relates to hospital orders. Just as the circumstances of murder vary enormously, so the circumstances of murderers vary widely. There may be people who have to be incarcerated for a long period for the protection of the public. There may be others who, we are fairly certain, will never kill again. Sometimes we have to look at the mental condition of the offender.
In many cases a judge would want to make a hospital order, possibly with restrictions. The way we deal with that at the moment is to take up the time of the courts, of the judges, of the legal profession and of expert witnesses, arguing the technicalities of whether someone acted by reason of diminished responsibility. What we should be discussing is whether the hospital order is the appropriate disposal.
The case mentioned a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) seemed to turn largely on whether it was possible to obtain a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. In that case the jury had to say, "No, we think it was murder." That is not the question which the court should be addressing; the court should be asking whether it is necessary to lock someone away either in prison or in hospital in order to protect the public. The new clause would spare the courts, the legal aid fund, the Crown prosecution service and everyone concerned the resources now spent on such issues which are needed for other purposes.
Sometimes matters operate in reverse. I understand that victim support groups say that it is wrong for a sentence to

be decided in that way because it is the wrong test. They think that some people who escape life imprisonment for murder, because of the application of the diminished responsibility test, would probably be much better incarcerated for a long period. So the victim support groups say that there can be, perhaps not miscarriages of justice, but wrong ways of dealing with the matter in both directions. This proposal was supported by the Butler committee on mentally abnormal offenders in 1975, the Advisory Council on Penal Reform in 1978, the parliamentary all-party penal reform group in 1986 and the Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment—the Nathan committee—in 1989. All those bodies concluded that this was the right way in which to deal with the problem.
I think that I told the Minister in Committee that one of her distinguished predecessors in the high office that she now holds—Lord Windlesham—had made what she would recognise, had she read his book, as an unanswerable case for my proposal. I assure her that it is supported widely among the judiciary. I am not relying on the evidence of private conversations; I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield talking in Committee about a poll of members of the Court of Appeal by the Lord Chief Justice—I think that the figures were 19 to 12——

Mr. John Patten: A leak!

Mr. Archer: It may have been a leak; nevertheless, it is no secret that a substantial number of the higher judiciary take this view.
It may be said that there is no need to worry because the matter can be left to the Home Office: the Home Office will release the offender at the appropriate time. That is wrong in principle and, I believe, distorted in practice. It is wrong in principle because the general policy of the law and the constitution in this country is that individual freedom is determined by courts of law, not by the Executive. I am not suggesting that the present Home Office Ministers will enter into a dire conspiracy to keep people in prison for longer than they should be there; but it is wrong in principle that the Executive should make such decisions. It is also wrong in practice, because the Home Office—like all of us—is anxious to show that a life sentence is a serious matter and should mean a substantial sentence. It is very difficult to release someone who has been sentenced for life if he has served only a relatively short sentence.
The most serious cases are lumped together with those that would merit a more moderate sentence. The Home Office is therefore compelled either to release people after only a short period—which might send out the wrong signals—or to keep in custody people who should be, and can safely be, released. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) gave the example of a constituent who had committed a murder, but who clearly did not come within the exceptional provisions that reduced murder to manslaughter. That person was no danger to the community. He had been on bail while he was on remand awaiting his trial; he had been walking to and from his home, meeting people in the street, and no one had seen anything wrong in that. Nevertheless, when he was convicted, the court had no alternative but to pass a life sentence.
In Committee, the Minister argued that some hon. Members who had voted in December for the


reintroduction of the death penalty had done so on the understanding that the alternative was a life sentence. He said it would be ratting on an agreement if we changed that now. I think that I understand that reasoning—as a reason why we should not have made the change in Committee, where other hon. Members cannot take part in the debate or listen to what is being said. But if that is applied to debates on the Floor of the House, any attempt to disturb the present position by hangers, or any lobby that they and their friends choose to muster, can mean no reform for the foreseeable future. Whatever motion was introduced, and however unlikely it was to succeed, the Government could claim after the vote that nothing must be changed because some hon. Members might have voted on the basis of the status quo. That would put an end for ever to all proposals for reform.
I urge the Minister to consider this matter on its merits. Not even the Home Office can consider that "Whatever is, is good." I think that those words come from Alexander Pope; no doubt I shall be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong. Some things that are, are not good. I do not believe that even the Home Office believes that everything that is, is good. It may even think that the existence of this provision does not make it right. Perhaps we shall have another first for the Home Office.

Mr. Stuart Randall: This new clause has considerable support outside the House. In particular, it has the support of the Penal Affairs Consortium. We believe that life sentences for murder should no longer be mandatory. There would be a maximum sentence, and judges would be able to use their discretion to impose fixed sentences where that was appropriate. Hon. Members will be aware that, at present, a life sentence is mandatory for murder. No judge may alter it to take account of the circumstances of a particular case. The sentence imposed on someone convicted of a mercy killing is the same as that imposed on a terrorist murderer or a child sex murderer.
A recent survey by the Quaker Council for European Affairs, entitled "A fair deal for lifers" and dated 1990, found that the number of prisoners in England, Wales and Scotland sentenced to life terms was 3,054. That number greatly exceeded the combined figure for all the other countries of western Europe, which was 2,688. The report says:
As information on numbers is only lacking from Switzerland, Malta, Liechtenstein and San Marino, it would be reasonable to assume that the United Kingdom has more life-sentence prisoners than the whole of the rest of western Europe.
If the number of life sentence prisoners in Northern Ireland had been added to the figure for England, Scotland and Wales, the total number for the United Kingdom would have been 3,503.
The report concludes that an important reason for the high number of life sentences in this country is the fact that the life sentence is mandatory in murder cases. For example, it seems that in many other countries of western Europe, a person convicted of a domestic murder would get a fixed sentence.
The mandatory nature of the life sentence has been much criticised. Making life imprisonment the maximum sentence, rather than the mandatory sentence, for murder was a recommendation of the Butler committee on

mentally abnormal offenders in 1975—a recommendation to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has referred—and of the Advisory Council on Penal Reform in 1978. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to several other august bodies that had made the same recommendation, but it would take too long to detail the findings of all those bodies. I shall therefore concentrate on the most recent report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment, under the chairmanship of Lord Nathan.
The Nathan committee considered in detail the principal arguments for the mandatory life sentence, and rejected each one in turn. It had been argued that, because murder is a uniquely serious offence, it should attract a distinctive penalty to mark the revulsion with which society regards it. However, the Select Committee pointed out:
some cases of murder will be less grave than some cases of attempted murder, or of manslaughter, or of causing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The committee quoted Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone in R v. Howe in 1987, when he said:
Murder, as every practitioner of the law knows, though often described as one of the utmost heinousness, is not in fact necessarily so, but consists in a whole bundle of offences of vastly differing degrees of culpability.
The Select Committee also pointed out that the definition of murder was not confined to intentional killings but could be satisfied when there was an intention to cause serious bodily harm.
It had been argued that life imprisonment is an appropriate retributive sentence for murder. In paragraph 110B, the Select Committee said:
Another view is that the stigma which ought to attach to any particular murder varies according to the circumstances and should be marked by a sentence appropriate to those circumstances. Retribution demands a variable sentence.
It had also been argued that the mandatory life sentence was necessary for the protection of the public. The Select Committee pointed out that many murders were committed in domestic circumstances by people under immense emotional stress, who are unlikely to offend again.
It had been claimed that public confidence in the criminal justice system would be eroded if the penalty for murder became discretionary. The Select Committee argued that the reaction of the public
varies greatly according to the circumstances
and that the
public seems to be well able to recognise powerful mitigation, even in the case of deliberate killing.
Ministers have argued that there would be considerable public opposition to moves to make life the maximum, rather than the mandatory, sentence for murder. However, such a reform would be in line with the views expressed by the families of murder victims in evidence given to the Nathan committee by Victim Support and the Parents of Murdered Children Group. The director of Victim Support, Helen Reeves, said:
We want to put on record quite clearly that, from the families we have met … a long and determinate sentence, would probably be as satisfactory to the family as a life sentence.
Victims' groups also expressed concern that the existence of the mandatory life sentence led to many offences of murder being diminished to manslaughter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West referred to the Gallup poll for "Public Eye". I shall not repeat what he said, except to say that the survey found that only 10 per


cent., of people were in favour of individuals who had killed a terminally ill relative, who had asked to be killed, receiving a life sentence.
This is such a serious and complex matter that I must make all these points clearly. It has been argued that the abolition of the mandatory life sentence could present peculiarly difficult sentencing problems, because there were no precedents to guide a judge in imposing a determinate sentence for murder. The Select Committee said that the Court of Appeal would soon establish appropriate principles of sentencing for murder, as it has for other offences, and that the Lord Chief Justice did not appear to envisage any special difficulties.
It was argued that the mandatory life sentence is a valuable deterrent. In paragraph 114B of its report, the Select Committee said:
The counter-argument is that the fact, that the life sentence is mandatory, actually reduces any deterrent value a life sentence may have. It dilutes what should be the awe-inspiring nature of the sentence. Because many murderers receive unnecessary life sentences, the average time served is reduced … if the life sentence became discretionary, the average time served by lifers would be substantially increased.
The life sentence became discretionary in the Australian state of Victoria in 1986, since when the incidence of homicide has remained about the same.
The case for change is overwhelming. Many life sentence prisoners could appropriately have been given fixed sentences. Murders vary enormously from planned and calculated killings for material gain or political motives to those committed under pressure and in circumstances of much emotional stress. We believe that judges should be able to reflect those variations in their sentences, reserving life imprisonment for the most heinous cases.

Mrs. Rumbold: Some peculiarly seductive arguments have been advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on substituting life sentences for the mandatory sentence for murder.
The evidence that has been put before us is that a large body of public opinion believes that the mandatory life sentence is no longer required and that the courts would be a better forum for passing sentence on those convicted of murder. The British public trust the House of Commons to act and think on their behalf.
A body of opinion may think that the replacement of the mandatory sentence with a life sentence would be satisfactory, but we should define what we mean. The mandatory sentence for murder means not that people who commit murder go to prison for ever and a day but that for the rest of their lives they are under sentence and, although they may serve only relatively short sentences according to the nature of the murder that they committed, after release they are not at liberty in the sense that the rest of the community is at liberty because if they reoffend they can be recalled and returned to custody.
That is an important principle and it shows the difference between Labour Members and the Government. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West spoke of the uniqueness of the life sentence. It is unique because many people regard the crime of murder as a uniquely bad and heinous crime. Although we recognize

the difference between someone who is unduly provoked into taking the life of another person in the heat of the moment and a calculated and planned vicious murder, and that each of those murders may attract different sentences, both people have taken the life of another person. The Government, and many people outside who do not articulate their views through "Public Eye" on BBC 2, believe that murder should attract a unique sentence. Some people may not articulate their view when questioned in opinion polls geared to getting a particular answer. As we all know, questions can be produced to look even-handed, but it is a sad fact of life that sometimes opinion polls reveal only what we wish them to reveal.
10.30 pm
This is a serious matter. We believe that the crime of murder is unique. A mandatory sentence means that people may serve a modest sentence in prison. When they are released, they may be recalled. Several cases justify retention of a mandatory sentence. A person released from prison may behave normally, but later in life he may reoffend and have to return to prison. It is important to retain a mandatory sentence to ensure the credibility of the system of justice which we uphold. I am unable to accept the new clause.

Mr. Archer: When the Minister said that our arguments were seductive, I hoped that she was about to announce that she was about to be seduced—hope springs eternal, at least on the Opposition Benches.
I was a little disappointed that the Minister seemed to take such comfort from the thought that someone who had been sentenced to life imprisonment would be under licence for the rest of his or her life. It is not the normal theory of the constitution that individuals should be at the mercy of the Executive for the rest of their lives. It would require a strong case to inflict that on anyone, and that that should happen, irrespective of the nature of the offence and whether the public needs to be protected and whether the offence is likely to recur—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) can stop the semaphore. I see that the Minister wishes to intervene and I shall, of course, give way.

Mrs. Rumbold: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is kind. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), but I am sure he knows that I can compete with other right hon. and hon. Members on even terms.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that I took comfort from the fact that people who were released on licence were in some way different and that their liberties were infringed. Of course, what happens rests in their hands. They have no need to reoffend. Their liberties are not impaired, except at their own hands and by their own behaviour.

Mr. Archer: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady was present at our earlier debates. The burden of one of our debates was that if a person's liberties are at the mercy of the Home Office, it does not follow that what happens reflects that person's desserts. The European Court of Human Rights said that that did not follow. If a person's case is periodically reviewed by a court, we can hear the arguments and see what happens and there may be a possibility of appeal. If a person's liberty is determined inside an office where we cannot see what is happening and


there is no periodic review, it is not true that his fate depends on how he behaves—it may depend on the number of files on another person's desk.
I do not suggest that that happens regularly, but it is precisely why the textbooks on constitutional law and practice are so insistent that people's liberties should not be at the mercy of the Executive but should be determined by the courts. I am troubled that the right hon. Lady, at this early stage of her career in the Home Office, has such touching faith in the infallibility of the Department, and it makes it no easier for me to say what I am about to say.
A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said that murder

may be regarded as unique but that that does not necessarily reflect the degree of moral culpability involved. The degree of moral culpability for a rape, an aggravated assault or an armed robbery may be greater, in the judgment of most of us, than for some murders. The argument that murder is unique is not a particularly strong one when reflected upon, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will do just that in the little time that remains for reflection. I do not think that any purpose would be served by pressing the matter to a Division, but the right hon. Lady cannot stop me hoping.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 18

SENTENCING AN OFFENDER WITH A MENTAL DISORDER

'(1) Subject to subsection (7) below, this section applies where a person is convicted of an offence and the court is told in good faith or has reason to suspect that the offender is suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983.

(2) The court shall not pass a custodial sentence on the offender unless it is of the opinion that—

(a) the offender's mental condition and his need, if any, for treatment will not be seriously and adversely affected by such a sentence; and
(b) that all reasonable and practicable steps have been taken to investigate and secure for the offender such treatment, if any, as may be appropriate for his mental disorder.

(3) Where a court passes a custodial sentence, it shall be its duty to state in open court that it is of the opinion that both of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) above apply and why it is of that opinion.

(4) A magistrates' court shall cause the opinion stated by it under subsection (3) above to be specified in the warrant of commitment and to be entered in the register.

(5) For the purpose of determining whether it is of such an opinion as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, a court shall obtain and consider a medical opinion on the offender's mental condition and the likely effect upon this of a custodial sentence.

(6) In this section "medical opinion" means an oral or written report which is made or submitted by a registered medical practitioner approved for the purposes of section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983.

(7) This section does not apply where the sentence for the offence is fixed by law.'.—[Mr. Sheerman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of this extremely important new clause is to ensure that courts will be obliged to obtain and consider a report on an offender's mental condition in appropriate cases, and shall not pass a custodial sentence until it is of the opinion that the offender's mental condition will not be seriously adversely affected by such a sentence.
We were talking this afternoon about debt defaulters being sent to prison. I said that it was ghastly that fine defaulters are sent to prison like the defaulters in Dickens's time. Perhaps I was slightly exaggerating, but I am sure that the House had some notion of the point that I was trying to make.
If we were looking for a major scandal in our criminal justice system, it would be necessary to focus only upon the mentally disordered who presently occupy our prisons, who find themselves in court and who find themselves dealt with in an entirely inappropriate way. There was much debate on these matters in Committee.
It is disturbing that many of the Government's social policies that bear on health, the closure of large mental institutions and care in the community have been slogans more than realities for many, who have found that they have nowhere to live and no work. They finish up—we can see some of them a short distance from the House—in cardboard city. We know that others end up in prison. Whenever I visit prisons, officers and governors say, "There are people here who should never have been sent here." They are talking about people who did not end up in prison 10 years ago. Surely it is ghastly that, over the

past 10 years, the penal policy within the criminal justice system has led to many mentally disordered people being sent to entirely inappropriate places.
The policy of the Home Office is that the mentally disordered offender should be diverted from custody wherever possible; I refer the House to Home Office circular 66/90 of 3 September 1990. However, apart from the Mental Health Act 1983, which provides powers for the courts to order treatment in suitable cases, there is no legal obligation for the courts to consider the mental state of a defendant before sending him or her to prison. As the Bill stands, it makes no provision to oblige the court to investigate the mental condition of the defendant. The court will be required only to take that into account when other parties may have obtained relevant information about it.
The clause provides an opportunity to advance the Government's widely welcomed pledge to aid diversion by ensuring that defendants with needs arising from their mental disorder do not slip through the net into an entirely inappropriate penal system.
As this matter is not something about which the Government know nothing—we believe that they were persuaded of it in Committee—we had high hopes that, on Report, they would produce some positive amendments. No one can avoid understanding that this is a scandal. We are not trying to make this into too much of a party political issue, but if it were not so late and we had not therefore decided that we shall probably not seek to push the new clause to a Division, we might be marshalling much more political arguments in this discussion. However, we shall not do that, because we want to persuade the Government.
The problem is apparent. One of the most ghastly inequities in our country today is the fact that mentally disordered people are in prison, where they should not be. The new clause gives the Government an easy way to stop that. It states simply that there should be a proper psychiatric assessment of prisoners coming to the attention of the court.

Dame Jill Knight: I have read the new clause with great interest, and have one question about it. Although none of us wants a person who is suffering from a bad mental disease to be imprisoned thoughtlessly and carelessly, what about mental patients who have, say, hacked somebody to death and are a real danger to the public? I am worried that the new clause does not refer to that aspect.

Mr. Sheerman: Although I shall come to that point later, I shall try quickly to put the hon. Lady's mind at rest now. In a severe case, where someone who is mentally disordered hacks someone to death, psychiatric opinions will of course be advanced in court. In such severe and dramatic cases, psychiatric evidence becomes available as part of the prosecution and defence structure of our court system.
The new clause seeks to deal with the fact that, if the research is correct, up to 20 per cent. of people in our prisons are suffering from some form of mental disorder. I do not know whether that figure is too high or too low, but that is the figure that people are giving us. There is also the anecdotal evidence that I have already mentioned, of prison governors and officers saying, "We are not a mental institution, but we are being asked to lock up people not


because their behaviour is criminal but because their mental state leads them to commit crime." There is a difference.
I hope that I can put the hon. Lady's mind at rest by saying that the new clause would require all the sentencing courts to have regard to the mental condition of a defendant who it reasonably suspects or is told in good faith has a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983. To some degree, that already happens. In my experience, most courts are quite caring places. A police officer, probation worker or court official will often flag the fact that the case is not what it seems, and that the defendant needs medical attention.
At its best and in that informal way, our court system works, but it is not working in that way enough. The procedure is patchy and unsystematised. The court cannot pass a custodial sentence upon such a person unless it is of the opinion, which has to be stated in open court, that a custodial sentence will not "seriously and adversely affect" the offender's mental condition and his or her need, if any, for treatment; and that "all reasonable and practical steps" have been tried to investigate and secure for the defendant any treatment which he or she needs. The court has to obtain a medical opinion on the defendant's mental condition and the likely impact of custody upon him before it forms its opinion.
A medical opinion can be supplied orally or in writing by a doctor approved under the Mental Health Act 1983. In practice, it is usually a consultant psychiatrist or senior registrar in psychiatry.
The court would not he under that duty when the offence was murder. Medical reports are always obtained in murder cases, in any event. I told the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that I would come to that.
10.45 pm
Too many mentally ill people are in our prison system. The Home Office has commissioned research, which is continuing. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me if progress has been made. The research is being undertaken by Professor John Gunn into the psychiatric profile of the sentenced prison population. His findings have not yet been published, but, on 2 October, The Observer contained an article on the expected findings of the report. It said that more than a fifth of sentenced prisoners were mentally ill, including many in acute need of psychiatric treatment which they did not receive. The findings suggested that more than 1,000 sentenced prisoners fell into the acute category within that band. We are therefore talking about large numbers of mentally ill people inside our prisons.
Since we discussed the matter in Committee on 11 December, two key reports have been published, which are of great relevance to today's debate. I shall describe them briefly.
First, on 14 December 1990, the Home Office published Judge Tumim's scathing report on Brixton prison. Its most grave criticisms were of the medical facilities in the gaol. These were described as understaffed, underskilled, operating in crowded and wholly inappropriate physical conditions, where the strip cells, for the most disturbed prisoners, held a permanent smell of urine, the walls bore faecal stains and the mattresses were dirty. The report considered that insufficient use was being made of section

48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to arrange the transfer from prison of the mentally ill prisoner requiring treatment.
I am going through the evidence quickly, because I do not want to detain the House too long; but it is important to put the evidence before the House. The report revealed that Brixton prison is a major source of psychiatric reports for the criminal justice system. It performed that role in more than a third of the total number of cases in which reports were obtained. The cost during 1988–89 of a week's remand in Brixton for this purpose can be simply averaged at £402.
On 19 December, the Home Office published the report of the chief inspector of prisons into suicide and self-harm in prisons. As the Minister will know, it makes ghastly reading. It revealed details of suicides in prison. It detailed graphically the vast difference between the treatment which a mentally ill prisoner would receive from the prison medical service and that which he or she would receive from the national health service, and the inability of the prison medical service to meet the needs of the seriously disturbed, and especially the non-compliant, prisoner.
The report's 123 recommendations include many which are relevant to the mentally ill or mentally disturbed prisoner. It accepted the connection between mental disorder and suicide in a proportion of cases—22 per cent., according to the study by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, which is referred to in the report. In over 33 per cent. of suicide cases, the person had a history of psychiatric contact, while over 25 per cent. had had previous treatment as an in-patient. Responding to the report, the Home Secretary referred to the "disproportionate number" of mentally disordered prisoners who take their own lives.
I hope that the House accepts that that evidence is relevant to the new clause. The report proposed that, in the interim, and before the NHS had built up its facilities, certain prison medical wings should be upgraded to NHS standards. That recommendation also appeared in the Brixton report. The Home Secretary responded by stating that a group convened by the director of the prison medical service was to consider the proposal. But the pressure group MIND believes that the proposal has already been rejected by the Home Office and the Department of Health. I should like the Minister to comment on that.
At the same time, Judge Tumim stressed the need for diversion from inappropriate penal custody of the mentally disordered defendant. He recommended the duty psychiatric rota scheme in operation at Bow street, Marylebone and Horseferry road magistrates courts. To test the patience of the House just a little—this is an important matter—I shall outline to the House what that scheme is. The scheme provides rapid and effective assessments to the court from a psychiatrist attending the court. The provision of such cost-effective schemes in every busy court would avoid the possibility that the amendment to clause 3 would lead to remands into custody simply for the purpose of obtaining medical reports.
I could understand it if the Minister said that this was a difficult problem and that he did not want to see more mentally disturbed people in prison for psychiatric reports. However, the Tumim report suggests that a duty psychiatrist service could be organised quickly throughout the court system to provide a rapid assessment of a


person's mental state. That report would not require that person to be held for a week in Brixton or Armley, where he would be prone to take his life or his mental illness could be exacerbated. Such assessment schemes are already working.
In Committee, confidence was expressed in the prison medical service. I recall that the Minister of State stated:
It is recognised that excellent work is being carried out by the highly-qualified people who are involved in the prison medical service".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 December 1990; c.143]
The Minister and I must agree to disagree on that. I suppose some good work is undertaken somewhere, but every report I have seen states that it is about time that we got rid of the prison medical service and allowed prisoners to come under the care of the NHS. That would be a healthier and better system, and it is advocated by many prison visitors.
The annual report of the chief inspector of prisons in 1989 also criticised prison medical facilities. The prison medical service scrutiny report of July 1990 found:
There is no clear definition of the standard of clinical care expected
in the service. In October 1990, the British Medical Association published critical findings in its report on the health care of remand prisoners.
It is no longer possible to be in the least complacent about that scandalously inadequate service. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is imperative to take swift action to ameliorate that appalling situation. The Government's welcome circular of September 1990 must be backed up by legislation now. We are concerned that the circular, in common with some of the rhetoric on community care, means nothing without national implementation backed by adequate resources.
The courts need diversion schemes with rota psychiatrists available to provide assessments. Health authorities may need to provide psychiatric care beds while social and probation services will need to offer community facilities such as psychiatric bail hostels. Before the Minister says that all that would be expensive, it is important to remember that savings would result from such services. I have already said that it costs £402 to remand someone in Brixton for a week. Our proposal would speed the introduction of duty psychiatrist rota schemes in courts. They are already operating in some places, and we must extend their use, as it will result in fewer remands in custody that carry such hugh costs in financial and human terms.
Diversion from custody for those who are mentally disordered can be greatly advanced by improving the quality of the decisions affecting them. Too often, those people have suffered from indifference, discrimination and prejudice at the hands of the authorities charged with their care. Those authorities are not wicked, as one cannot blame a criminal justice system that does not have specific training in how to treat the mentally disordered. Our system is designed to deal with "normal" criminals.
I am not criticising the personnel, the training they receive or their motivation. It is just a fact of life that the criminal justice system is designed to deal with "normal" criminals. If we ensured, however, that the courts sought expert advice, there would be less chance of ill judged or inappropriate sentencing decisions on the mentally disordered.
It is now the policy of the BMA that each court should have a duty psychiatrist rota, so there should be no

difficulty in obtaining the co-operation of that profession. Our proposal could also give impetus to the Government's circular 66/90, which calls on courts to establish arrangements for speedy access to professional psychiatric advice.
A parliamentary answer that I received on 3 December stated that no information was available on the number of schemes that had been established. Perhaps the Minister can expand on that answer, because I am surprised that the Home Office does not know how many schemes are in operation or have been established. It is not enough simply to state that such schemes are desirable: we need action now. If, because of resource implications, the Government are unwilling to tolerate a statutory duty that completely mirrors the previously expressed policy that they tried to introduce in the criminal justice system, the policy clearly lacks conviction, and its implementation will be constantly compromised.
When we discussed the subject in Committee, the Minister said:
I give a clear undertaking that I shall examine the issues and bring forward Government amendments on Report.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 December 1990; c. 151.]
Where are those amendments? The Opposition are dismayed at the Government's failure to respond to such a key issue. Prison is the worst place for someone whose mental condition is amenable to treatment from which he would benefit. It serves neither the public interest in reducing the likelihood of further offences, nor the individual interest of the offender who requires treatment. He or she should be entitled to decent treatment and care.
If we make it harder for the courts to commit defendants to such conditions, we may save the lives of those whose mental disturbance leads to suicide, encourage the rapid development of the co-ordinated and comprehensive schemes, and make the idea work in practice.
As the hour is late, I have not done justice to my argument. Many new clauses have been moved faster than I have moved this one, but new clause 18 is of the greatest importance and affects many of the most vulnerable people in our society, who should not be in prison and who could be easily diverted from it if the Government were to accept the new clause. I hope to hear a positive response from the Minister.

Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) was absolutely right that we should put the protection of the public first when considering the position of people with mental problems. One of the most difficult problems facing a Minister of whichever Government is when someone who is found guilty of a terrible crime such as murder is also found to be mentally ill and is taken for treatment to an institution rather than a prison. Recommendations sometimes come to Ministers after a very brief period—two or three years—suggesting that the person is cured and because he was not a criminal he should be allowed into the community. I find such decisions some of the most difficult that I have to take. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston, who made an important point, and other hon. Members, that the Home Office will continue to take such decisions with very great care.
I hope that, as with our debates on racial discrimination, there is no difference between the two teams of Front-Bench spokesmen about the end we wish to


achieve. We must find a way of squaring the circle that enables the court to identify, and obtain reports quickly on, those suspected of being mentally disordered without defeating the purpose of the exercise by having to put them on remand in custody for a long period awaiting those reports. That is an extremely difficult issue to deal with practically. The problem of reconciling the two conflicting objectives is, essentially, a practical, not legislative, one. I shall talk first about the practice and describe my ideas on legislation later in my speech.
We need arrangements for psychiatric reports to be made at short notice, otherwise the purpose of what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and I want to achieve—to have fewer mentally disordered people in gaol—will fail because they will be in prison for a long time, kicking their heels, waiting for a report.
There are very few schemes in operation in this country where duty psychiatrists are on hand to give a rapid assessment. I saw one such scheme in action at Bow street. There are only three others in the country: one at Great Marlborough street, one at Horseferry road and one in Peterborough. Opposition Members' instant reaction might be to blame that on lack of resources from the Government, but even if we turned on the tap of money tomorrow, we could not possibly provide the necessary schemes all over the country within a year. There are just not enough psychiatrists. Not enough of them have been trained to do this difficult job. The royal college is tackling that problem now.
11 pm
If we introduce this legislation now, we shall be laying a trap for ourselves. There are effective schemes only in the three places I mentioned, yet we would give judges the legislative duty to remand in custody people awaiting reports. The result would be even more people in the conditions to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield referred.
So this is not an occasion for waving the magic wand. Even if that prodigious kind fairy, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, were able to provide the money tomorrow, there are not enough psychiatrists to do the job at present.
I agree that we need to change the legislation. I continue to consider whether we should send a clear legislative signal in the Bill to show the courts more clearly how they should try to strike the difficult balance between unnecessary remanding in custody for psychiatric reports and sentencing to imprisonment mentally disordered offenders who should be dealt with in other ways.
When I gave the commitment in Committee to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield properly referred, it had not crossed anyone's mind that we should look at the workings of the Bail Act 1976. We are now taking a hard look at the parallel workings of that Act, to determine whether it might be possible to improve matters by altering it in this legislation.
I am continuing to work on the legislative possibilities with the aim of introducing a proposal in another place. I have taken into account new difficulties that have been identified; I have reflected on the issues raised in Committee; and I have stumbled on new possibilities involving the Bail Act. I hope that in the light of that further undertaking the hon. Member for Huddersfield will see fit to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Sheerman: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I am encouraged by his commitment to further consideration.
I had understood from the British Medical Association, however, that there was no problem. Is the Minister saying that the Institute of Psychiatry claims that there is a shortage of manpower? If there is a shortage, how long does the Minister think it will take to solve the problem?
Ministers always manage to mention the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but are we really talking about a great deal of money? Any cost analysis must take into account how much will be saved by not sending people unnecessarily to prison. We need a proper costing of the operation, not a one-sided analysis.
Assuming that I am granted assurances on these matters, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

RESTRICTIONS ON IMPOSING CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 1, line 13, at end insert
'and the court passes a custodial sentence on the offender for a term of more than two years'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Randall: The amendment is widely supported by informed opinion outside the House. Its aim is to extend the criteria governing the use of custodial sentences.
Hon. Members will recall that clause 1(2) of the Bill lays down the conditions whereby custodial sentences shall not be passed; it also refers to offences triable only on indictment, where the sentence is of two years or less. As it stands, the clause requires the criteria to be satisfied in all cases where the offender has not served a prison sentence, but in other cases where an offender is convicted of an indictable-only offence the Bill allows courts to pass a custodial sentence without giving reasons and without having to justify the sentence in line with the criteria in clause 1(2).
There are several reasons why the criteria should be extended to indictable-only offences. The basic argument for the criteria in clause 1 is that having to give reasons to justify custodial sentence of grounds relating to the seriousness of the offence or the need to protect the public from serious harm is a valuable discipline which should help to reduce the likelihood of inappropriate custodial sentences.
A subsidiary but important argument is that, if there is a subsequent appeal against the sentence, the existence of the statement of reasons helps everyone involved in the process to decide whether the sentencing court's reasoning was acceptable or not.
These arguments apply just as much to custodial sentences imposed for indictable-only offences as to custodial sentences for summary or either-way offences.
Many indictable-only offences cover a very wide spectrum, in some of which a community penalty is entirely appropriate. Robbery, for example, ranges from armed robbery to offences in which the degree of force was relatively slight and the amount stolen small. In recent years about a quarter of offenders convicted of offences


triable only on indictment—that is, in England and Wales—have been given non-custodial or suspended sentences. In 1986 the figure was 26 per cent., in 1987 it was 25 per cent., in 1988 it was 26 per cent. and in 1989 it was 24 per cent. Therefore, if the statutory criteria do not apply in indictable-only cases, certainly the discipline of applying them would not be present in many cases where a community penalty is a realistic possibility.
In Committee, Labour Members introduced an amendment to extend the criteria in clause 1 to all indictable-only offences, excluding those for which the penalty is fixed by law. When the amendment was discussed on 29 November, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) said:
It would be wrong and inappropriate to require the Crown court to follow the detailed procedures in clauses 1 and 3 in every serious case in which an offender has repeatedly committed serious or violent crimes … We are trying to give guidance to judges about the way that Parliament will seek, in future, to see sentences handed down, but not to go so far as to make a judge sit up straight and say, 'This is ridiculous. Why should I have to give a reason for sentencing someone who has just committed a dreadful aggravated burglary or a terrible rape? Why should I have to go through the hoops and say in open court why this man or, more rarely, this woman should get an immediate custodial sentence?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 November 1990; c. 23–26.]
The revised amendment meets the point that the Minister made in Committee. In those serious cases where a long prison sentence is inevitable, the judge should not have to give reasons, in line with the criteria for custodial sentences in clause 1. We are arguing that, by imposing a requirement to give reasons for custodial sentences of two years or less, the amendment would ensure that the discipline of applying the criteria in the indictable-only cases makes a community penalty a realistic possibility. An argument against the amendment is that it might tempt judges to pass sentences of more than two years when they would otherwise have passed a short one. However, it is extremely unlikely that judges would give longer sentences simply to avoid giving reasons. This is a reasonable amendment, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I begin by declaring an interest as a solicitor and an assistant recorder, although the incomes from both sources is not enough even to cover my mortgage, given the interest rate.
I respect the expertise of my right hon. Friend the Minister in penal reform and sentencing policy. He combines that with a sensitivity and decency that are widely respected on both sides of the House. My query arises out of line 20 and the words "serious harm". Those words have troubled the judiciary. In the Criminal Justice Act 1988, one of the criteria for sentencing, which is also set out in clause 1 (2)(b), was that a custodial sentence was needed only when it
would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him".
In dealing with young offenders, the courts felt that "serious harm" meant physical harm, rather than more general harm, to the community. That definition gave judges problems.
Let us take the example of a 25-year-old man with eight or nine convictions spread over three years. All the convictions are for crimes that are not so serious individually as to give a court a chance to impose a

custodial sentence. He may have committed what one could call gentle burglaries during the day time, wandering into somebody's house and being a nuisance, although doing so without any aggravating factors against people or breaking in. He may have taken away and driven a car, which is not a serious crime although it is a nasty business for the owner of the car.
The man may have been dealt with leniently in respect of all those offences—conditionally discharged once, fined, placed on probation, given a bigger fine, given community service, placed on probation again, and so on. He comes before the court and pleads guilty to another single charge of the same sort. Let us place ourselves in the position of the sentencing judge. The court may have concluded that the young man is such a nuisance to his locality, causing trouble by his regular burglaries and taking and driving away, that he should be sentenced to a short period of custody. Under Clause 1(2), is it possible for him to be sent into custody? The first part says that the offence was so serious that only such a sentence could be justified. He will not be caught under that limb, will he? The second part says that only such a sentence would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him. It cannot be said that the harm is physical, but equally the harm to the general public might be substantial in terms of nuisance value.
11.15 pm
I should like my right hon. Friend to guide me on whether serious harm means physical harm. I would prefer it to mean physical or otherwise, to cover a case like the one that I have mentioned. My right hon. Friend may draw my attention to clause 3(3), which says that previous convictions can be relevant to forming an opinion as to the seriousness of the offence. If he does, I should like it confirmed, if possible, that the seriousness in effect relates to non-violent and violent behaviour. It is important that judges' hands be not tied too much.
My right hon. Friend may say that under the legislation there is a possibility of sending someone to prison for such an offence if he is a professional crook, a recidivist—someone who commits burglary professionally time after time. There may be examples of young men who cannot be described as professional crooks but who are perhaps persistent—for want of a better word—nuisances in their own locality. Is there an opportunity under the Bill for them to be sent into custody at any stage? I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to help me.

Mr. John Patten: First, I will deal with amendment No. 86. Then I shall examine the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) in his welcome intervention. I shall end with a panegyric in praise of the Government amendments which I hope will carry the House.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) for explaining the reasons behind amendment No. 86. It has been said many times during the passage of the Bill that a custodial sentence should be imposed only when it is the just desserts of the offender. We agree on that. However, I do not think that the amendment is helpful in that respect.
Let me remind myself and the House of what clause 1 does. It imposes restrictions on the use of custody for all summary and either-way offences and for indictable-only offences where the offender has not previously been in


prison. Indictable-only offences are of their very nature serious. That is why they are indictable only. If the offender has previously served a prison sentence, we do not think that it is right to ask the courts to apply the full rigour of clause 1 before passing sentence. As the clause stands, the courts will know when they begin to sentence whether the offender is someone who should be hit by the full weight of clause 1.
I understand the reasons for the amendment, but I think that it would create a serious logical difficulty. The poor old court would have to decide whether the offence deserved a sentence of more than two years before it could tell whether clause 1 would apply. If it did, the court would have to start all over again to determine the sentence, this time applying clause 1. So, by virtue of clause 1, the court would have to consider again whether the offence was serious enough to justify the sentence. In such circumstances, the Crown court proceedings would become a logical maze at best or a pantomime at worst. I prefer to rely on the well-known Court of Appeal route to deal with problems arising from wrongful interpretation.
On the problems raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West—Mr. Assistant Recorder Malins—I think that he is on to a good point in considering seriousness. As he knows, there is nowhere any definition of seriousness. There is not, at the end of an Act, a long schedule or list of things that are judged to be serious or not serious. In the end it is up to Crown court judges, recorders or assistant recorders to decide what is serious and what is not. The example quoted by my hon. Friend of a persistent burglar is covered by clause 3(3), under which the courts can take into account mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Clearly, in the example given by my hon. Friend, the circumstances of the previous offence aggravate the seriousness of the current offence. There is therefore no need to involve the criterion of protecting from serious harm in such a case, and the people who might be terrorising my hon. Friend's constituency are, I think, catered for adequately by clause 3(3). None the less, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity to clarify the point.
I resisted amending the Bill in Committee because I felt that the arguments adduced for removing the words "or otherwise" from the clause were worthy of consideration, but that we should not rush into it. Having taken a good, long, hard look at the matter, I have concluded that restricting clause 1(2)(b) to violent or sexual offences in line with clause 2(2)(b) is logically correct and will make for simplicity of sentencing. It resolves the logical difficulty that was pointed out in Committee and emphasises the clear distinction between property crimes and violent and sexual crimes that is reflected throughout the other sentencing provisions in the Bill. I hope that the House will accept the Government amendments.

Mr. Randall: I confess that I am a little disappointed by the Minister's response. I thought that we had addressed all the arguments that he advanced in Committee and come up with a lovely shiny new amendment that would enable us to put fewer people in prison. The aim was to enable indictable offences to be tested by the criteria in clause 1 and to try to limit the number of indictable offences that were considered by introducing the two-year time scale. I thought that that was rather a novel way of dealing with the matter.
Many indictable offences now result in non-custodial sentences—about a quarter. I felt that many such cases were not harmful; people were not being put in prison. I thought that the amendment would enable people who had committed such offences to be dealt with outside prison. The motive was good. I think that we should use the amendment as a flag, waving it at the Lords and perhaps persuading them to consider it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 1, line 19, at beginning insert
'where the offence is a violent or sexual offence'.

No. 3, in page 1, line 20, leave out from 'him' to end of line 21.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 1, line 22, at end insert—
'(c) and, in the case of a sexual offence, in addition to subsection (2)(a) or (11) above, that the offence involved persons under the age of 16, or the offence took place without the consent of one or more of the persons involved.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 4, and amendments Nos. 36, in page 2, line 35, at end add
'or
(c) in the case of a sexual offence, the offence involves persons of the age of 16 or over, and the offence takes place with the consent of all the persons involved.'.
No. 94, in page 2, line 35, at end insert,
'; or—
(c) in the case of a sexual offence, the offence involved persons of the age of 16 or over, and the offence took place with the consent of all the persons involved.'.
Government amendment No. 14, amendment No. 1, in page 18, line 29, leave out
'30, 31 and 33 to 36'
and insert
'13 and 30 to 36'.
No. 95, in page 18, line 30, leave out
'the Sexual Offences Act 1967'
and insert
'section 1(3) and (4) of the Sexual Offences Act 1967.'.
No. 38, in page 18, line 30, leave out
'the Sexual Offences Act 1967.'.
and Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17.

Mr. Cohen: Amendment No. 93 provides that a court shall not pass a custodial sentence unless it believes that the offence involved persons under 16, or that it took place without consent. It applies two principles. First, there should be no discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual offences, which should be dealt with equally under the law; secondly, "consensual" offences involving no victim, and involving people aged 16 or over, do not warrant being classified as serious sex crimes and should not be punished with custodial sentences. I welcome the Government's similar statements of principle. I am thinking, for example, of their amendments in relation to merchant seamen. However, I think that they have come adrift. What I seek to do is to give effect, in law, to those principles.
A Home Office press release of 8 February refers to the Minister's letter to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who is in his place. That press release says of clause 25:
the provisions are not intended to discriminate against homosexual or heterosexual offences.


The Minister's letter says:
It will therefore be clear from what I have said that the sentencing provisions of the Bill, supported by the definition of 'sexual offences' in clause 25, have nothing to do with increasing the penalty for victimless homosexual offences or, indeed, changing in any way relative seriousness with which the law regards offences of a homosexual, as opposed to a heterosexual, character.
That explains the principle. Indeed, it follows up a response of the last Home Secretary, whose new name I can never remember. One of my hon. Friends refers to him as Lord Waddington of Strangeways, but perhaps that is a bit too rude. When he was Home Secretary this question was put to him by the hon. Member for Hornchurch:
Will he undertake to look closely at clause 25 which, it has been suggested, would increase the punishment for minor offences such as soliciting by men or women? If that is so, I am sure that many hon. Members would suggest that much higher sentences for those offences are not appropriate.
The then Home Secretary replied:
I do not believe that my hon. Friend can be right. Clause 25 does not refer to that. If he will have a word with me afterwards, I shall see whether there is anything I can do to meet his point."—[Official Report, 20 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 143.]
Clearly, the Minister of State, in his letter, is trying to fulfil that undertaking. A Home Office press release of 15 October says:
It has never been the Government's intention that the Bill's provisions should increase in a discriminatory way the penalties of homosexual offending.
While welcoming those principles, I seek to have consenting homosexual behaviour removed from the list of serious sex crimes. It is quite wrong that victimless behaviour should be on a par with genuinely serious sex offences, such as indecent assault or child sex abuse. Indeed, the Government have virtually acknowledged that. The latest press release, issued on 1 February, gives two more examples: coercion of a victim—a schoolmaster abusing a position of trust to take advantage of pupils—and an unsuccessful attempt to entice a young child of either sex to go with the offender. I do not think that those offences need to be covered by this clause; they can be dealt with by existing laws against indecent assault or attempted indecent assault on a child or a man.
The Government's amendments, although they are welcome, leave in place three types of consenting homosexual behaviour as serious sex crimes. These are soliciting, indecency and procuring. Clearly, the Government are still in a muddle. They deleted procuring from the Sexual Offences Act 1967, but left it in the 1956 Act, which is the most used—in fact, all 346 convictions in 1989 arose from its provisions.
I will give another example of the way in which the Government are in a muddle. Consenting homosexual soliciting, indecency and procuring are listed in clause 25 as serious sex crimes, but not one of the equivalent heterosexual offences is listed. That runs counter to the principles that the Minister annunciated in his letters.
This is about sentencing. I want equality and the best way to achieve that is not to imprison either heterosexuals or homosexuals in cases of consenting sexual offences where all the persons involved are 16 or over.
Soliciting, indecency and procuring are left in the clause. A total of 2,311 people were convicted of those offences in 1989, including 90 people gaoled for up to five years. In addition, some people were given cautions. That

is the highest level of convictions and cautions since the mid-1950s when homosexuality was still illegal. That is disturbing and we must be concerned that homosexuality could be on the way to being recriminalised. Peter Tatchell, of the organisation Outrage, said:
This legislation intensifies the criminalisation of gay sexuality. It reverses the liberalising trend of the last three decades. Clause 25 takes us back to the pre-Wolfenden days when homosexuality was seen as a threat and menace which had to be repressed by law.
Clearly, the Government have moved a bit since then, but the danger of recriminalisation still remains.
11.30 pm
Soliciting and procuring have nothing to do with prostitution. Keeping those offences in clause 25 criminalises attempts to arrange and facilitate homosexual relations, even where those relations are completely legal. Keeping indecency in the clause penalises affectionate acts between men outside the privacy of their own home. That can include things as irrelevant—in my view—as kissing, caressing and hugging and activities at lovers' lane locations. As a result, we often have elaborate and expensive police entrapment arrangements. Heterosexual couples involved in similar behaviour are almost never prosecuted.
Seven types of commonplace homosexual behaviour are covered by the three items still included in clause 25. These include: introducing two men who fancy each other and subsequently have sex; allowing two men to stay overnight in one's house and to have sex in one's spare bedroom; cruising and chatting up other men or exchanging names and telephone numbers in a public place; all gay sex where more than two people participate; any form of homosexual activity involving a man aged between 16 and 21; gay sex in a bedroom in a private house while other people are present in other rooms, for example, a flatmate watching television in the living room, and all sexual or affectionate contact between gay and bisexual men of any age outside the privacy of their own home—including cottaging, sex in lovers' lane type locations and even mere caressing, kissing and cuddling. The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that those should not be categorised as serious sex crimes resulting in imprisonment.
There are three other disparate but relevant matters. I have written to the Minister about sentencing in my area. Waltham Forest courts have been handing out fines of about £250 to gay and bisexual men convicted of consensual indecency. Yet the same judges have fined men only £50 for brutal sexual assaults on women and only £20 for racist abuse and threatening behaviour. That cannot be satisfactory.
A constituent of mine, Ms. Woolfson, has written to me saying:
We are supposed to be living in a `free' society, but it seems that the Government is imposing a certain or conforming standard of existence on its subjects. Surely people should have the right to make up their own minds how to live their lives, (without harming others of course).
Many homosexual people live ordinary lives without harm to anyone.
If clause 25 becomes law, judges will have the power to impose much harsher sentences on gay and bisexual men convicted of consenting behaviour and thousands more gay men could face imprisonment and wrecked lives.
I received a letter from the National Association of Probation Officers. It says that the clause has no equivalent in other European jurisdictions and that


Some courts may construe this behaviour as physically or psychologically harmful. In view of the extent of homophobia within the criminal justice system, NAPO would support continued attempts to delete the two above offences from clause 25.
Repeat offences are not commonplace. The law criminalises activity which is not unlawful in most of Europe and which, for many men, is the only feasible means of sexual contact.
It is wrong to put consenting offences by homosexuals on a par with the sexual abuse of children. The Government's formula that those offences may be "physically or psychologically injurious" to members of the public is a gross loophole, because it is poorly defined and gives huge discretionary powers to the court. Judges may be intolerant or illiberal and impose severe punishment. Alan Sampson of the Prison Reform Trust says that he fears that the powers in clause 25 could be misused.
The issue is consent, and all consenting offences should be deleted from the list of serious sex crimes in clause 25. I urge the Minister to accept my amendments, which would implement the Government's stated intentions, or at least to give a firm commitment that they will think again and table new amendments.

Mr. Robin Squire: The amendments are important, but the fact that we are debating them at a late hour inevitably means that we will probably not do them justice. I shall not detain the House, partly because my voice is going.
I welcome the Government amendments. My right hon. Friend the Minister received appeals and was under pressure, if that is the right word, from several of my hon. Friends and others on the original wording of clause 25. He rightly understood that it was capable of misinterpretation. The points made by the Stonewall group were welcomed and valuable and they enable the Government amendments to clarify much of what was creating considerable concern among the lesbian and gay men community. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give due recognition to the support that he received from it.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister has not closed his mind to further amendments to the clause. I shall not echo the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), although he made several legitimate points that should find sympathy among hon. Members.
We should carefully consider whether the clause would apply to consensual offences. Amendments moved in another place could make clear the crimes from which we are determined to protect the public, particularly our youth, but stress that different considerations apply to adults.
I hope that the Government will carefully monitor the way in which the courts interpret the clause. I do not doubt the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Minister, to which the hon. Member for Leyton referred. My right hon. Friend is an honourable man and I know that he means what he says. The way in which the clause works in practice will determine the way in which people respond to the Bill and to the Government's improvements to it. I support the Government's amendments.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and the comments of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), who said on Second Reading

that there was a problem. The problem was not one that the Government set out to create but one into which they stumbled because of the drafting.
We had a brief debate in Standing Committee, when I pressed the Minister to think further about this matter. I am grateful to him for tabling some amendments at this stage. I view this matter slightly wryly, because some hon. Members criticised me for not pressing the measure to a vote in Committee. We have done better by not having a vote and getting the Minister to consider it again. I urge my hon. Friend not to press for a vote tonight, in the hope that he will consider it further. He has gone a long way towards meeting our worries, although considerable concerns still exist.
The first principle of the law is that it should protect people from the activities of others. I find it difficult to envisage the concept of a victimless crime. We do not need to involve the law in protecting individuals from consenting acts. I accept that young people must be protected, but it is odd that we have a law that says that people may participate in heterosexual activities when they are 16 but we restrict people from participating in homosexual activities until they are 18. That is illogical. We cannot alter that in the Bill; we can only alter the nature of the crime.
It is worrying that people can be kept in prison not on the basis that they are being punished but so that society can be protected from them. There should be somewhere more appropriate than prison to keep people if they are a danger to society, having already served their sentence.
The Government are increasing the penalties for those who commit serious crime in order to reduce it and to protect the public from it. In clause 25, they have scooped into the pool a series of serious crimes. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the offences that are still in this category which involve consenting adults, and assure us that he does not intend that the courts should increase the penalties.
The Bill is designed to increase penalties and increase protection, and one would not expect the courts to increase the punishments imposed on those who commit serious crimes in this category. That is not what the Government intended, and it is not what should happen. I understand that groups such as Stonewall feel that the Government have gone a long way towards meeting their concerns. Outrage and Peter Tatchell feel that they have not gone far enough. Much of the difficulty arises from the Bill's complicated construction and the fact that it refers to two previous pieces of legislation.
I shall listen carefully to the Minister's explanation of how he intends the Bill to operate. I hope that he will listen to the fears that have been expressed by hon. Members this evening and consider the written evidence that is submitted to him. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree to meet a delegation of Opposition Members. I suspect that some Conservative Members may want to meet him as well. I hope that he will give consideration to changing the wording of the clause when the Bill is considered in another place so that what he intends to happen, and what I think the House wants to happen, is clearly and obviously set out in the Bill.
That will ensure that, when the Bill is enacted, the law will be clear and obvious to judges when they have to administer it. It should be clear that there is no intention to increase the penalty for the crimes that we are


discussing. I hope that we shall be able to listen to the Minister in a spirit of trying to get the law right, and not in one of confrontation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
This is not the occasion to debate the rights and wrongs of the existing structure of sexual offences as they affect homosexual activity and hetebhzxual activity."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 18 December, c. 314.]
It never seems the right occasion to do so.
Sodomy is unhygienic, unhealthy and still the major cause of the spread of AIDS. If some highly paid actors form a group, flaunt their own perversion and wish to protect others from custodial sentences, that does not seem to me to be a good reason to soften clause 25, or any others, to satisfy their sensitivity for such persons.
The general public still detest these perversions and are anxious that the flaunting of them should not encourage young and impressionable teenagers to copy unpleasent examples, consenting or otherwise. These perversions cause a great deal of harm, even if they are carried out with consent.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said that the clause would lead to the recriminalising of homosexual activity. There are many who wish that it would. Why should the public have to wait for
further such offences to be committed by him"?
If the amendment were to read,
further such offences that might otherwise be committed by him",
it might be more acceptable. As it stands, it is bolting the stable door after the horse has fled.
The Bill as a whole is a good one, and I shall be sorry if any amendments introduced by the Government, or tolerated by them, in response to fashionable pressure should encourage, or fail to discourage, these very unpleasant perversions.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am tempted to think—this may be a bit mischievous—that the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was that of an agent provocateur. I understand that we should not be seeking to redefine in this Bill the characteristics of a range of sexual offences, and I do not think that anyone is seeking to do that.
I am grateful, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), for the co-operation of the Minister of State and his Department when we, and others, have made representations and inquiries of our own and on behalf of others on this subject. That co-operation reduced to a squall what had seemed likely to be a stormy debate, and I hope that the squall can be reduced to a calm sea in due course. The amendments that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and I have signed are seeking to do just that.
I hope that all Members of the House, including the hon. Member for Lancaster, will accept that there is a logic in doing what those who support the amendments seek to make possible. There are simple objectives of principle. First, it is sought to prevent the imprisonment, or potential imprisonment, of those who are victimless in the normal sense of the word and who are over 16 years of age. There

is no attempt here to change the legality of actions over 16. But in a society in which far too many people are in prison, we should be seeking to avoid sending to prison, or risking doing so, those involved in victimless offences.
The amendments seek to exclude those who are vulnerable. The Minister rightly said that we must be careful that we do not suddenly exclude from severe penalty those who abuse positions of power. An obvious example has been cited. I refer to those who hang about school playgrounds and interfere with young children. Society must rightly be firm in relation to such people's anti-social and criminal behaviour. We must draw a clear line between such abuse of young people and a more consensual form of activity.
We must also protect, as the amendments seek to do, those of a lower mental age who are clearly not capable of making adult decisions and who, tragically, are often also the victims of abuse. We must be careful that the line is drawn on the correct side in relation to them.
Although I have not had the opportunity personally to check the statistics, I must advise the Minister that the evidence shows that the present law appears to be used overwhelmingly against allegedly gay activity, rather than other activity. That suggests a lack of equity, and therefore discrimination. The second objective of principle is that we must seek to avoid discrimination in the application of the law.
Although these matters may be fairly academic to hon. Members, these offences can cause enormous stress and concern to individuals who get caught up in this area of the law. Before I was elected to this House, as a lawyer I both prosecuted and defended, and in cases under the Sexual Offences Act I have seen the trauma that is caused to people who are taken out of their normal family life on these types of charges and find themselves in court. They are not only publicly exposed, tried and fined, but sometimes imprisoned. That is an unjustified double penalty.
Although I have not received enormous numbers of constituency representations on this matter, I have received sensible representations from a few of my constituents, one or two of whom have made the clear point that the Bill, which has now been improved considerably, needs to be further improved if it is not to make their lives far more risky and discriminated against in terms of criminalisation than the lives of many of our other citizens.
I hope that the mood of the House, which was detected by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and others, is that although we recognise that the Government have already to an extent responded to the problem—perhaps no one at the Home Office foresaw this legislative entrapment—with a bit more effort on both sides, we can ensure that we do not pass something that we do not intend. We must ensure that we end up with clear legislation which does not criminalise when it should not, does not discriminate, is consistent with civil liberties, minimises the number of people in prison, and yet wholly protects those who are vulnerable.

Mr. Chris Smith: You will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I do not follow point by point the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), passionately though I disagree with its content and the colour of her language.
The Government will appreciate the degree of concern felt in the lesbian and gay community over the original proposal in clause 25 when it first saw the light of day. To many people, it seemed as though the Government were intent on increasing the penalties for activities which, while technically illegal, were entirely consensual and victimless. That apparent threat comes at a time when lesbians and gay men face discrimination in many aspects of their lives; when gay men are increasingly being violently attacked in the streets and outside pubs and clubs throughout the land; when many gay men are heroically engaged in the battle against HIV and AIDS; and when many of us had hoped that we might be making progress on the rights of the millions of our citizens who are lesbian or gay, not retreating back wards.
Therefore, I give a warm welcome to the changes that the Government are making to clause 25. They have gone a long way to relieving widespread anxieties. However, I do not believe that they go far enough. I urge the Government to go the extra mile.
I shall deal first with the clause. The Government are removing three of the five offences which caused concern from the list of potentially serious offences—those relating to the crews of merchant ships, procuring, and living on the earnings of male prostitution. They have also clarified the definition of the serious harm which has to be caused before the stiffer penalties of clause 25 can be triggered. So far, so good. But we have to ask why the Government have left in the offences of indecency between men and solicitation by men. Those are overwhelmingly minor, consensual activities, yet they will still be included in a list along with truly serious matters such as child sex abuse.
There are still a disturbing number of convictions for those two offences every year. I put four specific points on those offences to the Government. First, the offences are discriminatory and are used against gay men exclusively, or almost so. Secondly, they are widely used in cases of police entrapment. Hardly ever has a member of the public appeared in court to complain that they were the victim of a supposed approach under either of the offences.
Thirdly, if, as they said in the press notice issued together with the amendments when they were published, the Government have valid anxieties about cases such as a headmaster taking advantage of a pupil or the enticement of a child, other powers are available—such as the offence of indecent assault, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. The Government simply do not need the powers in clause 25 to tackle a serious offender such as they describe. Meanwhile, scores of far more innocent people would be put at risk, albeit a qualified risk, of severer sentencing.
Fourthly, the continued inclusion of the two offences perpetuates the adverse labelling of gay men and gay relationships as second class and less valid and valued than the loves and relationships of others. To do so diminishes our democracy in a real sense. I strongly urge the Government to think again about including those two offences in clause 25. The Minister said, and I appreciated him saying it, that he did not wish to be discriminatory. He said that he did not wish to increase the penalties for relatively innocent gay men. Let him, therefore, accept amendment No. 1 and put the matter entirely beyond doubt.
I urge the Government to go further still. The law still discriminates massively against lesbians and gay men. I,

for one, will not rest until proper and full equality before the law, coupled with freedom from discrimination, has been achieved.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the absurdities of the present legal position. Sex is legal between a man and a woman at 16. Effectively, it is legal between two women at 16. But between two men it is legal only at 21. Let us compare the position in other European countries. In all the following countries there is complete equality in the age of consent. In Denmark it is 15; in France it is 15; in Greece it is 15; in Italy it is 14; in the Netherlands it is 16; in Spain it is 12; in Norway it is 16; in Sweden it is 15; in Poland it is 15; and even in Albania it is 14. Yet here in Britain the law is grossly discriminatory.
I appreciate that it is difficult in our consideration of the Bill to achieve such equality now, but amendment No. 93 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is at least a small step in that direction. Under that amendment when an act takes place entirely with the consent of the parties involved and both or all are over the age of 16, an offence might still have been committed, but it would not be imprisonable. That is a step in the right direction.
I ask the Government to acknowledge the confused and discriminatory nature of our sexual offences laws. The age of consent obviously discriminates by a margin of five years. Some indecency and other offences are used exclusively against gay men. A variety of consensual and victimless activities are regarded, quite unjustifiably, as criminal.
A root-and-branch review is long overdue and I hope and trust that the Government will agree to set such a review in motion as a matter of urgency.

12 midnight

Mr. Michael Brown: The hour is late and I do not want to detain the House long, but I should like to endorse much of the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I also thank my right hon. Friend for meeting a delegation from Stonewall. As a result, much progress was made on a number of items connected with clause 25.
I agree with other hon. Members that there is still some way to go. There is still discrimination against victimless crime and, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, that underlines the need for a root-and branch reform of the law on gay sex. Problems still arise because of the attitude of the police and the courts towards soliciting and what is called "gross indecency". A great deal of discrimination still exists that cannot be put right by the Bill alone, the welcome amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend or the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the spirit in which opinions have been expressed.
When we compare the state of the law in this country with that in other Community countries and elsewhere in Europe, there is a strong case for a law commission to be appointed to study the subject. It should address many of the grievances that gay men and lesbians legitimately express.
Gay men and lesbians can be reassured by my right hon. Friend's comment in the press notice issued recently that he is anxious to ensure that the Bill, once enacted, does not add to existing discrimination. However, the


arguments advanced tonight should be addressed by the Home Office in a full comprehensive review of the law on this subject.

Mr. Maclennan: I need not detain the House, because the points have been made extremely effectively by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I should put it on record, however, that it is the view of my party that a review of the kind called for by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is a matter of urgency. We hope that the Government will take the opportunity, if not here then in another place, of the passage of Bill to announce such a review.

Mr. Sheerman: I do not want to detain the House. The Government's proposals on clause 25, together with the changes to clauses 1 and 2, represent a major shift in their position, which we welcome.
The Government have considerably tightened the definition of serious harm to mean
death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological".
That should make it clear that consensual acts between men are not intended to be covered by clauses 1 and 2. We welcome the Government's recognition of the strength of our arguments and those advanced by other hon. Members and outside lobbies.
However, while procuring has been removed from clause 25, soliciting and indecency remain. I understand the Government's argument that they are needed for the very few coercive acts that can arise, but is it necessary to retain indecency within clause 25? Cannot the coercive offences about which we are all concerned be tackled by means of different legislation? Of course, I am running into the issues raised by other hon. Members about the need for a review of the law.
We are also worried that, despite the Government's intentions, some consensual offences may still be caught by clauses 1 and 2. The Labour party intends to return to that issue in another place and to introduce amendments to tighten up the definition of clauses 1 and 2 to ensure that consensual offences cannot fall within their scope.
It will be important to monitor the legislation to ensure that it has the desired effect. More generally, the debate has shown what a mess the sexual offences legislation is in. Genuinely consensual offences can be, and are, dealt with under the same statutes as behaviour that is dangerous to the public. That cannot be right. The law is in need of urgent reform. I have been extremely impressed by the quality of contributions from both sides of the House, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them.

Mr. John Patten: I was interested to hear the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), and the brief but welcome contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown). I was also pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and from the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who initially raised the flag in Standing Committee in his powerful speech. The hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for

Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) also contributed. That is quite a gallery of talent and we heard a range of views.
It is clear that a number of different agendas are running, not just the one with which I am concerned—the protection of children, women or boys from serious and violent crime by homosexuals or heterosexuals. I do not decry the other agendas that involve major reforms of sexual law in this country. To Opposition Members in particular, I must say that the Bill does not address that subject. It is a Criminal Justice Bill, and the measures before us ensure that the public, the vulnerable public, the mentally handicapped, the young and others are properly protected. That is why we initially tackled the subject, and I intend to address the burden of my remarks to those issues, although the House will have noted what the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and others have said about other agendas.
There is much common ground between the Government and the Opposition on what has become known as the clause 25 issue, although it is a complete mistake to call it that because it relates to clause 1. The issue rests on clause 1, and the Government amendments deal adequately, through the clause 1 framework, with the problems which have been wrongly perceived to be contained in the list of offences in clause 25. I can understand how people unfamiliar with reading parliamentary legislation and Bills could think that there were awful designs and intends lurking in the legislation.

Mr. Archer: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: I was just getting into my stride—does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to interrupt me? It is very late and I must try to keep awake, but if he really wants me to I shall give way.

Mr. Archer: I did not want to interrupt the Minister's stride, but his argument will not do—clause I must be judged according to the offences on which it bites.

Mr. Patten: Indeed, but we must also consider what amendment No. 4 states, which is:
protecting the public from serious harm from him"— 
—the word "hit" is used in a legislative way to refer to him or her—
shall be construed as a reference to protecting members of the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, occasioned by further such offences committed by him.
In other words, it is only if the offender can be shown to have caused death or serious physical or psychological damage that clause 25 will have any effect.
Clause 25 defines the term sexual offence for the purpose of part I of the Bill. The key use of the expression is in clauses 1 and 2, which enable courts to give longer custodial sentences than are strictly justified, according to the seriousness of the offence. I am sure that no hon. Member would dissent from the view that the courts must be given adequate powers to protect the general public from those who commit these forms of sexual and violent offences.
I rapidly learnt when the debates on this issue began that there were misapprehensions about it outside the House. Following discussions between the thoroughly responsible organisation Stonewall and myself, the Government effected the changes incorporated in the Government amendments to the Bill. We have sought to


put the matter beyond all reasonable doubt and to allay the concerns that have been voiced. The answer that I gave the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) a moment ago showed that clause 25 offences will be brought into play only when the public need protection from death or serious physical or psychological harm.
We have moved a long way to try to satisfy the understandable anxieties of people in the outside world——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend has moved so far to allay those concerns that he has aroused the concern of people who take a different view.

Mr. Patten: I am sorry if my hon. Friend finds it unsatisfactory that the Bill should allow courts to impose longer sentences on homosexual or hetrosexual men or women who inflict death or serious physical or psychological harm on members of the public. I think that my hon. Friend is probably worried about the wider issue of sexual law reform, which is not strictly the subject of this Bill.
It has been suggested that I should see an all-party group of Members. I should have been delighted to welcome Members for a Home Office cup of tea at any time in the past. I wish that hon. Members had been to see me earlier. My door is always open, my kettle always on the boil. I should be happy to hold a meeting before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. Not only have we travelled a long way to accommodate the views of people in the outside world; I believe that we have got the balance right, so I hope that Opposition Members will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Cohen: I shall not repeat my speech. The Minister is right to say that the Government have moved a long way, but neither I nor a number of people who have spoken in the debate—and people outside this place—believe that he has got the balance right yet. Victimless offences should not be deemed serious sex crimes punishable by imprisonment.
However, I hear what the Minister has said. He agreed to meet a delegation. His mind is not completely closed. I welcome that. It hope that we can persuade him to make some changes over the cup of tea that he is offering.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 am
Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
`(6A) In thissection and section 2 below any reference, in relation to an offender convicted of a violent or sexual offence, to protecting the public from serious harm from him shall be construed as a reference to protecting members of the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, occasioned by further such offences committed by him.'—[Mr. John Patten.]
Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 2, line 28, after `offence', insert
`or (although convicted of it in earlier proceedings) is sentenced for it at the same time as he is sentenced for that offence'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 6 to 9.

Mr. Sheerman: Very briefly, because I recognise the lateness of the hour, we understand and accept amendment No. 7 but we oppose Nos. 8 and 9. We are

very concerned that the amendments extend the power to impose longer terms of imprisonment for violent and sexual offenders to magistrates courts. This is a worrying extension of powers which could lead to greater inconsistency in decisions between magistrates courts.
It is hard to see how it could possibly protect the public from death or serious personal injury. Any serious triable either-way offence will be sent to the Crown court. Where the offence is not that serious, surely this power is not required. Magistrates courts can sentence to a maximum of six months for one offence or 12 months for more than one offence, and if they would have sentenced someone to four months but decide on six months as a result of this clause one cannot envisage that it would protect the public very much from death or serious personal injury; it would, however, lead to greater discrepancies between magistrates courts for the same offence.
That is our worry. We are not going to push this to a vote or anything silly like that, but we think that it is important to flag it up at this time of the evening.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 6, in page 2, line 29, leave out `those proceedings' and insert
`the proceedings in which he is sentenced for the other offence'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 2

LENGTH OF CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 2, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert
`which is triable either way or only summarily'.

No. 8, in page 2, line 41, leave out
`passed by the Crown Court'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 87.

Mr. John Patten: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is probably entirely my fault, but was Government amendment No. 9 called?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Government amendment No. 9 comes next. In between we have an Opposition amendment, No. 87, to deal with.

Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 2, line 42, after 'offence', insert
`where the offender has been previously convicted of one or more such offences'.
This amendment would restrict the provisions for courts to give violent or sexual offenders and those with previous records of violent or sexual offences longer sentences than the offence deserves. Clause 2(2)(b) empowers courts to give violent or sexual offenders sentences longer than the offence deserves if they consider it necessary to protect the public from serious harm by the offender.
This provision is not aimed at offenders who commit the most serious offences. Those offences which are triable only on indictment are excluded from clause 2 and would continue to be governed by the present sentencing criteria. Those offenders would, therefore, continue to receive lengthy sentences in line with Court of Appeal guidance which has produced swingeing increases in lengths of sentence for violent and sexual offences since the mid-1980s.
According to the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" of February 1990, this provision is aimed at offenders convicted of less serious offences, but where the court realises that they are at serious risk of causing actual bodily harm which would merit a 12-month sentence. Under the proposed legislation the Crown court could give a longer sentence up to a maximum of five years if it considered it necessary to protect the public from serious harm by the offender.
In public statements before the Bill was published, the Minister justified the proposal on the ground that it was needed for persistently violent sexual offenders whose previous pattern of offending led the court to believe that they were a serious risk to the public. However, there is no reference to "persistence" in the clause.
In the absence of a history of previous offences, there can be no grounds for concluding that the first-time offender who is before the court for a minor offence against the person must be in prison for longer than the offence deserves to protect the public from serious harm.
When the amendment was discussed in Committee on 6 December, the Minister referred to it as an "excellent" amendment, and agreed to reflect on it. By tabling the amendment again, we have given him the opportunity to inform the House of the results of his reflection.

Mr. John Patten: It was an excellent, extremely well-drafted amendment. I have reflected on it, and the Opposition are still wrong and I am right, for the following reasons. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was right in saying that the policy that sentences longer than can be justified by the seriousness of the offence should be available for persistent, violent and sexual offenders was set out in the White Paper. This is the group of offenders most likely to be a risk to the public and about which the House has the greatest concern.
It is also likely that the offenders for whom the courts judge a longer sentence to be appropriate are likely to have previous convictions, most of the time of a nature similar to the offence for which they have been convicted, and would therefore satisfy the test set in the Opposition's excellently drafted amendment. I do not disssent from what it is trying to achieve. However, we need to consider carefully whether we can rely on offenders from whom the public needs to be protected always having previous convictions of a similar nature. This may be exceptional to rare, but there may be offenders whom the courts judge, from their pattern of behaviour, to be dangerous but who have never been convicted before. In some cases, they may have been convicted when younger, but were only cautioned, although a series of cautions would show the way in which they were developing.
The protection of the public from dangerous offenders is so important that it would not be right to let the courts' ability to afford the public this protection to hang on whether the offender had previous convictions. In Committee, we were often told that nothing should be ruled out when writing legislation because we have to provide for the exceptional, strange or peculiar case. That is what we are doing in resisting the amendment.

Mr. Randall: That is a disappointing reply to what we thought was a radical and forward-looking amendment. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 9, in page 3, line 1 leave out 'Crown'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 3

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 68, in page 3, line 21 insert—
'(d) take into account any reparation made by the offender.'.
In recent legislation, attention has rightly been given to holding offenders accountable by requiring them to make reparations for their offences through compensation orders and community service orders. The Criminal Justice Act 1982 also allows courts to take account of reparations made during deferment of sentence. The amendment would extend the principle to give offenders an opportunity and an incentive to make reparation even before the case comes to court.
We believe that this could be done in the framework of a reparation projection. Those projects have been shown, in Home Office research, to be widely welcomed by victims who have taken part in them. A similar amendment debated in Committee was not accepted by the Government on the ground that its terms were already covered by clause 3. It is submitted, however, that the argument is based on a misconception of the nature of reparation. When the Bill refers to the offender's attitude to the offence and to his physical and mental condition, those are traditional criteria related to mitigation of sentence or to the choice of a rehabilitative sentence. Reparation, however is a different concept because it is based not solely on measures imposed on the offender but on the impact on the victim.
Some reparation projects go further and provide for mediation between victim and offender, provided that both are willing. That can be beneficial to victims and offenders. The amendment is intended to draw the attention of courts to the distinction and to encourage them to take account of any efforts by an offender to make amends to the victim. It would also allow the reparation to be done much sooner.

Mr. John Patten: It is common ground between us that if an offender has made or is willing to make reparation for his offence, for example, by returning stolen property or making good criminal damage, he should get credit for that. It is our intention that that should be capable of being taken into account under clause 3(1)(b). The issue was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) in relation to mitigating and aggravating factors. The court should regard it as a factor in mitigation if the offender has made reparation or is willing to make it.
I think that the point is already covered, but I have listened to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has said, and between now and when the Bill is dealt with in another place I will consider further whether it yet provides adequately for mitigation generally. An important point is involved; I do not dissent from that. I shall certainly bear in mind in doing so what the hon. Gentleman has said.
My consideration will also cover the point about credit for time spent in custody abroad when awaiting extradition which exercises the right hon. and learned


Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). The matter was discussed by him and by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on new clause 12.
I hope that, having heard those kindly words, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will withdraw the amendment immediately.

Mr. Randall: Again I am terribly disappointed, although that was the most positive reply that we have had from the Minister in Committee or on Report. I am sure that their Lordships will note the words of the Minister and I hope that there will be a string of superb amendments based on the one that we have constructed, so that this provision may be included in the legislation. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

ORDERS COMBINING PROBATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 70, ill page 8, line 48, at end insert—
'(2A) A court shall not make a combination Order unless it would have imposed a custodial sentence if it had not made such an Order.'.
The amendment would require courts to use the new combined probation and community service order only when they would otherwise have imposed a custodial sentence. The aim of the new combination order is to provide the courts with a new, intensive and demanding penalty which would be a credible alternative to custody for many offenders who are currently in prison. However, there is no guidance to that effect in the Bill.
In the absence of such guidance, there is every possibility that the courts will use the new order for many offenders who would currently receive probation orders, community service orders or other existing community penalties. That has happened in the past with other new non-custodial penalties. For example, the community service order introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1972 was intended primarily as a alternative to custody, yet Home Office research a few years after its introduction found that only 45 to 50 per cent. of such orders were being passed on offenders who would otherwise have gone to prison. That was established by Home Office research study No. 39, entitled "Community Service Assessed in 1976" and printed in 1977.
The greatest risk lies in the fact that the more requirements are imposed on offenders, the greater the chance that the offender will break one of the conditions, will be returned to court for that breach and will be imprisoned. If the combination order were widely used, rather than the existing non-custodial penalities, it could lead to the imprisonment for breach of many offenders who would not otherwise have been at risk of custody. We feel that the Bill should stipulate that courts use the combination order only when they would otherwise have passed a custodial sentence.
12.30 am
When the amendment was debated in Committee on 13 December, the Minister said:
The one thing that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I do not wish to see on the face of the Bill is the outmoded concept of a sentence as an alternative to a prison sentence. We want offenders—men and women, boys and

girls—to be sentenced to the correct punishment and for them to get their just deserts".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 December 1990; c. 250.]
There is, however, no contradiction between the amendment and the idea that the severity of the sentence should reflect the offender's just deserts. The combination order will be the more intensive community penalty available to the courts. We feel that reserving it for more serious cases that would currently receive a custodial sentence would reinforce the idea that the most intensive penalties should be for the offences that deserve them.

Mr. John Patten: I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that the combination order should not be used indiscriminately and, in particular, should not be used when an ordinary probation or community service order would be adequate. However, the yardstick for any community sentence, including a combination order, is set out very clearly in clause 5(2): under subsection (2)(b), the restrictions on liberty in an order are to be
commensurate with the seriousness of the offence".
Such a restriction on liberty is likely to be among the greatest of all community penalties, which is why it is appropriate for the more serious offences to be punished in that way. I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. Randall: It is with great disappointment that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

CURFEW ORDERS

Mr. Sheerman: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 9, line 10, leave out 'sixteen' and insert 'eighteen'.
At this time of night, an hon. Member hopes that someone will immediately sentence him to bed! The Whip has been talking to me very sternly, and I shall speak very briefly; I have only four pages of notes.
The amendment gives me the opportunity to raise our real concern about, and fundamental opposition to, the proposals for curfews enforced by electronic monitoring, especially when they are applied to young people. In this, the Opposition have the support of the Penal Affairs Consortium and many organisations involved with the criminal justice system.
We consider the curfew order a negative system: it neither involves the offender in socially useful activity nor engages professionals to encourage him away from a criminal path. We believe that alternatives to custody should be interactive, giving people a positive activity to change their lives.
Since 1982, the courts have had power to impose night restriction orders on juveniles as a condition of supervision orders, but very little use has been made of that power. In 1988, in the whole of England and Wales, fewer than 10 such requirements were imposed as conditions of supervision orders. During the same period, the courts made enormous use of constructive community measures, such as community service and supervised activity programmes for young offenders.
Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee know my arguments reasonably well. We dislike this whole group of proposals. In Committee, we opposed them root and branch, and we have continued to do so on Report.


We shall be very surprised if the Government, in response to our case, say anything that will make us anything other than very disappointed, but at this time of the night we shall not push the matter to a vote.

Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), by saying that the Opposition will not push this matter to a vote, has already got his retaliation—or his lack of retaliation—in. However, I want to say one or two things about this matter.
The suggestion that people of 16 or 17 cannot accept responsibility for their behaviour is nonsense. People of that age—especially young men—who cause mayhem should be treated as adults. On the other hand, I should like to see a wimpish 18-year-old who is not grown-up treated as a child. We must develop a much more sophisticated means of dealing with young offenders, so that their maturity may be judged as objectively as possible. I happen to believe that, by making available to the courts a range of penalties which are tough and demanding, and which take account of different patterns of offending, we shall help to minimise the use of custody. I have no doubt at all that curfew orders in respect of people of 16 or 17 will make a very valuable contribution to the sentencing arrangements.
On this matter, there is a very wide difference between the hon. Member for Huddersfield and myself. At this stage, I cannot say anything to persuade him. He has said that he will not press the amendment to a vote. I happen to be in a position to tell him that, should the matter be pursued in another place, mighty battalions, led by my noble Friend Lord Waddington, will be able to repeat the punishment.

Mr. Sheerman: Following the Minister's concluding remark, the Whip is urging me to press the matter to a vote.
I am very disappointed that the Minister has not responded to the case made by the Home Office research and planning unit's evaluation of the recent electronic monitoring experiments at three magistrates courts. All the research has shown that electronic monitoring has been a disaster and is not cost-effective. Indeed, it is enormously expensive, and the reports on it suggest that it would be very difficult to make it a cost-effective alternative.
On practical grounds, moral grounds and grounds of pragmatism, this is the wrong kind of measure. We believe that it will be a Home Office white elephant. Magistrates will not use it, and probation officers will have difficulty with it. We believe that benign neglect will result in its death.
In view of the lateness of the hour, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16

FIXING OF CERTAIN FINES BY REFERENCE TO UNITS

Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 13, line 9, after "above)", insert
unless the court is satisfied that this would be unreasonable having regard to the circumstances of the offender".

This amendment would allow courts operating the unit fine system to calculate an offender's weekly disposable income at less than £4 where to calculate it at £4 would be unreasonable.
The means-related unit fine system, which this clause extends nationally, has been widely welcomed as an important and valuable reform. At the four courts where unit fine experiments have been conducted—Basingstoke, Bradford, Swansea and Teesside—the system has markedly improved the rate of payment of fines and has reduced the fines imposed on poor offenders to a much more realistic level, and at three of the four courts it has produced falls of between 24 per cent. and 27 per cent. in the numbers of people imprisoned for fine default. The fourth court, Basingstoke, rarely imprisoned offenders for fine defaults even before the experiment.
Under the unit fine system, the size of the fine is determined by multiplying a number of units representing the seriousness of the offence by the weekly disposable income of the offender. Clause 16 stipulates that the disposable income of the offender must not be assessed at below £4 per week. The reason for that is easy to discern: it is intended to avoid setting fines at such low levels that they might appear derisory. The four courts involved in the experiment all set themselves minimum levels for that reason. Three of the four courts set a minimum amount of £3 per week, and Bradford set a minimum of £5. However, those amounts were not legally binding and the courts did not invariably keep to them. They were simply general rules that each court laid down for itself, from which it could depart when it saw fit. In practice, the courts often did so when faced with poverty-stricken offenders.
The Home Office evaluation of the experiments—reported in Home Office research and planning unit paper 50 entitled "Unit Fines: Experiments in Four Courts in 1990"—found that, although Bradford had a nominal weekly minimum of £5, in practice 34 per cent. of fines were set at £3 or less, with 11 per cent. being set at £1 or
£2 per week. At Swansea, 41 per cent. of fines were set at £3 per week or less, with 13 per cent. being set at £1 or £2 per week. At Teesside, the area of highest unemployment, nearly half—47 per cent.—of the fines were set at £3 per week or less, with 39 per cent. set at £1 or £2 per week. At the fourth court, Basingstoke, which is a better-off area, there were few fines below £3 per week, although even those magistrates fined the occasional offender £1 or £2 per week.
We believe that the amendment would bring the statutory framework for unit fines in clause 16 into line with the practice of the successful pilot areas. To enact a rigid £4 a week minimum would reduce the benefit of an otherwise admirable measure to inject greater credibility and fairness into the system for imposing fines.

Mr. John Patten: I cannot accept this amendment. Giving the courts the discretion to set a value lower than £4 a week runs the risk of setting up a system such that the monetary value of the fine would become derisory. As I have said many times, the victim cannot and must not be forgotten. Whenever I am tempted to forget the victim, the ghost of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) looms up behind me to remind me of the importance of victims and of proper punishment.
I am not prepared to promote a system that could lead to the setting of such small fines that the victim is left feeling that the criminal justice system has no regard for


the pain tha the or she has felt or for the loss of property that he or she has suffered. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) did not, on this occasion, get his capitulation in first by saying that he would not pursue the amendment to a Division, but I hope that he will not.

Mr. Randall: I am disappointed with the Minister's comments, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20

DEFAULT IN OTHER CASES

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 15, line 21, leave out from `Act' to `and' in line 22.
No. 11, in page 15, line 37, at end insert the following subsection—

'(1A) For the Table in section 407(1A) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (maximum period of imprisonment for failure to pay fine or find caution) there shall be substituted the following Table—


"Amount of fine or caution
Maximum period of imprisonment


An amount not exceeding £200
7 days


An amount exceeding £200 but not exceeding £500
14 days


An amount exceeding £500 but not exceeding £1,000
28 days


An amount exceeding £1,000 but not exceeding £2,500
45 days


An amount exceeding £2,500 but not exceeding £5,000
3 months


An amount exceeding £5,000 but not exceeding £10,000
6 months


An amount exceeding £10,000 but not exceeding £20,000
12 months


An amount exceeding £20,000 but not exceeding £50,000
18 months


An amount exceeding £50,000 but not exceeding £100,000
2 years


An amount exceeding £100,000 but not exceeding £250,000
3 years


An amount exceeding £250,000 but not exceeding £1 million
5 years


An amount exceeding £1 million
10 years.".'.

[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 21

RECOVERY OF FINES ETC. BY DEDUCTIONS FROM INCOME SUPPORT.

Amendment proposed: No. 96, in page 16, line 12 at end insert—
`(a) provision that, before making an application, the court shall have first obtained the agreement of the offender to the application, unless default has been made in payment;'.—[Mr. Sheerman.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 12.

Mr. John Patten: I am unable to accept amendment No. 96. Labour Members' attempts to test the perfect management of the Bill will not succeed.
The amendment would limit deductions from benefit to pay fines to cases where the defendent had consented or

where default in payment had occurred. It would not be sensible to include such restrictions in the Bill. We intend the deduction arrangements to apply only after default, and after a means inquiry has been held. We shall keep the arrangements under careful review to see whether the point at which deductions are made should be brought forward.
I commend amendment No. 12, which honours the undertaking that I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to table an amendment to clause 21 on Report.

Mr. Sheerman: We are grateful for the few concessions that we get from the Minister. I made a note to thank the Government profusely for amendment No. 12. Following the eloquent speech in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the Minister promised to reconsider clause 21. The amendment is a good concession, and in that spirit I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 96.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 16, line 14 at end insert—
`(aa) provision allowing or requiring adjudication as regards an application, and provision as to appeals and reviews;'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 23

REDUCED PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN OFFENCES UNDER THEFT ACT 1968

Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 17, line 48 at end insert—
'(3) In section 10(2) of the Badgers Act (enforcement. penalties etc.), for the words preceding the proviso there shall be substituted the following—
(2) Any person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable on summary conviction—

(a) in the case of an offence under section 1 or 2, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both;
(b) in the case of an offence under section 3 or 4, to a fine not exceeding that level; and
(c) in the case of an offence under section 5, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on that scale;"
and in the proviso for the words "paragraph (b)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (a) or (b)".'.
It gives me pleasure to move the amendment, which fulfils an undertaking given to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), which was supported by all members of the Committee. It enables courts to impose a maximum custodial sentence of six months' imprisonment on anyone convicted under sections 1 and 2 of the Badgers Act 1973 of taking, injuring or killing a badger and of certain other offences of cruelty.
Hon. Members agree that this is the right way to proceed on this serious matter, to which I referred last Friday in a debate on badger setts.

Mr. Archer: The Minister's words will bring much pleasure to all hon. Members and to the League Against Cruel Sports, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the animal lobby. I am sure that they will greatly augment the pleasure of many badgers. I am most grateful.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the amendment. I hope that it presages the passing of the Badgers Bill, which will give greater protection to badgers and which will soon be considered in Committee.

Mr. Sheerman: We warmly congratulate the Government on introducing the amendment, for which we did not have to push too hard in Committee.
I wonder what on earth the animal lobby, as described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), looks like at this time of the morning. There is all-party consensus in favour of badgers; I am glad that they are not running a candidate at the next election.

Mr. Archer: If my hon. Friend does not believe that there is such an entity as an animal lobby, he has never met my dog.

Mr. Sheerman: I should not like my right hon. and learned Friend's dog to meet my dog.
We are against the principle of introducing more penal provisions, but the amendment will provide an important deterrent. We hope that it will not be used, but it will be useful.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

INTERPRETATION OF PART I

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 18, line 29, leave out '(except sections 30, 31 and 33 to 36)'.

No. 15, in page 18, line 32, at end insert 'other than—

(a) an offence under section 12 or 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 which would not be an offence but for section 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967;
(b) an offence under section 30, 31 or 33 to 36 of the said Act of 1956; and
(c) an offence under section 4 or 5 of the said Act of 1967'.

No. 16, in page 18, line 36, leave out 'serious' and insert 'physical'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Bill to be further considered this day.

Orders of the Day — Green Belt (Glasgow)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Tony Worthington: I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—again here for an Adjournment debate. I am sorry to have kept him up so late, but I am sure that he will treat this matter with his normal courtesy.
I wish to raise some issues involving the green belt in the north-western corner of the conurbation around Glasgow. I believe that all hon. Members think of the green belt as one of the great successful planning innovations. Some of us have been to other countries and seen the consequences of ribbon development and urban sprawl. Green belts are popular with all our constituents. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State agrees that both left and right are aware of the green belt's importance to our constituents. Open land seems to give great comfort to people and they forcefully resist any incursion on it.
I wish to raise two issues in Greater Glasgow and ask for the Government's response. In the Clydebank part of my constituency, we recently received an application for outline planning permission for a huge and controversial project led by Kilpatrick Estates. If I tell the Under-Secretary of State that it is said to involve £250 million and 2,000 jobs, he can imagine the scale of the proposed development. There are proposals for two large hotels, one of which will be a first-class hotel; one dry ski slope, billed as the finest in Europe; a corporate trading centre; an equestrian centre; a rare breeds centre—I hasten to assure the Under-Secretary of State that by "rare breeds" the developers do not mean Scottish Conservatives or aristocrats and that he is likely to be able to walk around safely—and three golf courses. It adds up to 4,000 acres—half the area of the Clydebank district. It is a huge project and an application of great significance.
What does Kilpatrick Estates consist of? We know of four people connected with it: one person who was billed as an "entrepreneurial adviser" has had three convictions and served prison sentences for offences including fraud; the chairman designate is a bankrupt; another leading agent served a gaol sentence arising out of a fraud case; and the company secretary is a struck-off solicitor. That hardly fills one with confidence.
Who are the backers? They were said to be a Saudi prince and the Sultan of Brunei, both of whom are backing away from the project and want to clear their names. A prestigious French company of international financiers, GM F, is denying all knowledge of the project. Everything that Kilpatrick Estates has claimed seems to be untrue. One doubts its claim that the proposed first-class hotel, with 250 beds, would create 650 jobs. With such a hotel, one would normally be thinking of one job per bed. It is difficult to understand from where 2,000 jobs would come overall.
The company's claims that consultations have taken place turn out not to be true. For example, it claims to have consulted the Countryside Commission, but I have received a letter from the commission stating that its


knowledge of the project is based only on reports which have appeared in newspapers, to which tribute should be paid.
Tribute must also be paid to local people. An organisation called Clydebelt is extremely concerned about the project and wanted to resist it from the beginning. It was because of the organisation's concern that the newspapers stepped in and there was some first-class journalism, especially in the Sunday Mail, the Clydebank Post, the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. As a result, the company has been exposed. It is now known that there are some fairly dubious people behind it.
Unfortunately, casualties have been left behind. For example, on the basis of promises made by the company to a local farmer that it would buy his farm, he bought another farm. Perhaps that was foolish. Having received no money from the company, he is unable to follow through with the transaction. Major Glasgow firms of architects, consultants, lawyers and public relations advisers have received no money from the company. There is no evidence that anyone who has carried out work for the company, or been promised money by it, has been paid. If that is untrue, I shall withdraw with great pleasure. As I have said, however, there is no sign that anyone has received money from the company, and there are debts amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
It seems that a company with a strange background can approach a district council—in the instance to which I have referred, it seems that the company was without resources—with a view to obtaining planning permission. But for the journalism which ensued, the company might have been successful. When applications are made involving extremely large projects, is there not a case for giving district councils the power to satisfy themselves as to the bona fides of the applicant company? I would genuinely welcome the Minister's guidance on that.
I know that conditions can be laid down after planning permission has been granted, but in the case to which I have referred there were applications involving £250 million and half the land area of Clydebank. Is it adequate to treat each application equally? If someone applies for permission to erect a porch, for example, the council will not ask if the applicant can afford to carry out the project. But if half the land area of a district council is involved in a project, there is a strong case for the district council to have investigative or interrogatory powers to ascertain the bona fides of the applicant company.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) wished to be present to associate himself with my remarks but is unfortunately unable to be in his place this evening.
The remarkable recovery of Glasgow and other urban areas in recent years has been in large part due to regional structure plans. These plans, often with the active co-operation of the Government, have stopped development on the outskirts of conurbations and other urban areas. They have effectively brought back into use what are described in jargon as brown-field sites, which may have been polluted or on which there are derelict buildings. In any event, the sites are not available instantly for development.
At the Clydebank end of my constituency, the Admiralty left behind a considerable number of oil tanks which had been there for many years and for which it no longer had any use. The pollution was such that it rendered the land useless for ordinary commercial

development. I am extremely grateful that an organisation such as the Scottish Development Agency is available to improve that land and to bring it into use, in this case for housing.
The SDA has made a huge contribution to preparing land so that it is attractive for other developments, but it now seems that restrictions on the budget of the SDA—soon to be Scottish Enterprise—are causing considerable problems, which Strathclyde regional council has already noted. At a regional planning committee last week, the regional council said that there were now considerable problems because the SDA was no longer bringing forward brown-field sites for development to the same extent as previously. The council is therefore having to drop from its planning proposals some brown-field sites that it is not reasonable to expect the SDA to develop, so they will not become available for housing. The consequence is not only to hold back the redevelopment of Glasgow and other older urban areas, but to transfer pressure to green-belt areas on the outskirts of cities.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden would like to be associated with my next remark. Bearsden, Milngavie and Strathkelvin are now under considerable pressure from developers who want green-belt land to be freed. In Milngavie, Stakis Developments is proposing 170 houses on 390 acres of green-belt land. That proposal has attracted 430 objections from local people who see a precedent being set for future developments and further housing. They recognise that further traffic will be generated and envisage the loss of quiet parkland with its associated flora and wildlife.
I am seeking from the Minister the assurance that Government policy will take account of the pressures that are occurring. If the Government do not use their influence and money to free brown-field sites in constituencies such as mine, areas such as Milngavie, which have a special character as a result of being small, compact and extremely pleasant to live in, will lose that character to the considerable resentment of the people who live there, some of whom—believe it or not, Minister—actually vote for your party——

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair.

Mr. Worthington: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
At the moment, there is considerable pressure on areas such as Bearsden, Milngavie and Strathkelvin, but at the same time—this is extremely sad—the pressure tends to be for new housing for the more prosperous groups when what is desperately needed in areas such as Bearsden and Milngavie is the continued existence of lower-value housing which is within the income of local people. Since the Government's introduction of the right to buy council houses, the small council housing stock has shrunk even further, with the result that local people who are not on high incomes are virtually forced to leave the area in which they would wish to live due to the loss of council housing. The local district councils tend not to be able to build houses to rent or lower-value houses to buy.
I ask the Minister for some assurances. First, will he take a look at the power of councils confronted with gigantic planning applications from people of dubious credentials? Local councils are not adequately protected at


present. Will he also examine the SDA's environmental budget? The consequences of the cuts in the budget are considerable, particularly with the forthcoming transfer to Scottish Enterprise and the local enterprise companies. It is not clear whether the local enterprise companies or Scottish Enterprise will be responsible for considerable environmental improvements. I fear that the pressure on the green belt will mount, while Scottish Enterprise is denied the funds to bring older brown-field areas back into use.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland(Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this Adjournment debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the Bearsden and Milngavie and Clydebank green belt areas. I am aware that any proposals to develop within the designated green belt areas can give rise to concern, but I hope that I shall be able to allay some of the hon. Gentleman's fears.
Green belt boundaries are not fixed by the Secretary of State. Any alteration of green belt boundaries is primarily a matter for the district council, as planning authority, which is guided, in areas such as Strathclyde, where both the region and the district have planning responsibilities, by the regional council. The regional council may suggest reductions in the area of the green belt through alterations to its structure plan, perhaps to provide increased housing land and to accommodate new business or industrial development, or it may propose extensions to provide additional protection. But it is for district councils alone formally to define the boundaries of the green belt in local plans. The boundaries of the Strathclyde green belt which cover the districts of Bearsden and Milngavie and Clydebank are therefore set out in the adopted local plans for the area and may be revised only by the district councils through the statutory alterations procedure. Only in the most exceptional circumstances would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intervene in the preparation or alteration of a local plan.
The structure plan for Strathclyde region is normally updated every two years and anxiety is regularly expressed that the region's proposed policies are likely to lead to significant inroads being made into the green belt, particularly to accommodate new housing developments. The hon. Gentleman will recall that both he and the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) raised this very point with me in an Adjournment debate on 12 April 1988. As I said on that occasion, I am unable to offer a definitive interpretation of the policies that form part of the current approved structure plan.
The reasoning behind any modifications to the policies which my right hon. Friend has made to the region's structure plan are set out in full in the decision letters approving the alterations. The precise import of the region's policies could be the subject of debate in the future, particularly when individual planning applications are being considered, and it is possible that the issues will eventually have to be determined by the courts. It would, therefore, be wrong for me to try to explain how the Government consider the policies should be interpreted. They should be interpreted by the district councils in

preparing alterations to their local plans and in considering any applications for planning permission which they might receive.
The previous alteration to the Strathclyde structure plan to come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—the 1988 update—was approved in December 1989. As with all Strathclyde updates, one of the major issues was the identification of districts where action needed to be taken to increase the effective supply of housing land. As with the previous alteration, in the 1986 update, Bearsden and Milngavie was not identified as one of those districts. Nor was Clydebank. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that further land for housing will not have to be found in the years ahead; this is a matter which the district councils concerned will need to discuss with housebuilders when preparing alterations to their local plans. It does, however, show that in a regional context neither Bearsden and Milngavie nor Clydebank are districts where a particular shortage has been perceived.
I understand that Strathclyde regional council is in the final stages of preparing its latest structure plan alteration—the 1990 update—for submission to the Secretary of State. It will, of course, be appreciated that I cannot discuss in detail any of the council's proposals, as they are not yet formally before the Secretary of State for consideration, but, as I understand it, the council has indicated in the consultative draft of the structure plan that certain parts of the green belt would be very sensitive to any development proposals. The green-belt wedges, or fingers, which penetrate into the built-up area of the conurbation—such as the land between Clydebank, Glasgow and Bearsden—are specifically identified as falling into that category. I also understand that the council's preliminary conclusions are that, as in previous years, there are no projected local housing shortfalls in either Bearsden, Milngavie or Clydebank districts. I should, however, again stress that this is not a matter on which I can speak with any authority at present.
More generally, the need for additional sites for housing does not necessarily entail the release of green-belt land. Many districts have sites allocated for housing which builders have reservations about developing. In some instances the problem may lie in an unwillingness on the owner's part to sell the land; in others there may be difficulties with ground conditions, site servicing, or infrastructure. We have always maintained that a joint examination of those sites by the builders and the district councils concerned could resolve many of the perceived problems and could lead to their acceptance as effective contributions to the housing land supply. In addition, there is considerable scope in many areas for development on brown-field sites in built-up areas. For all those reasons many of the additional sites which are required can, we believe, be found without the need for incursions into the green belt.
On more specific proposals within the Strathclyde green belt, I am aware that a development proposal has been put forward by Kilpatrick Estates Ltd. for the use of a large part of Kilpatrick hills, which straddles both Clydebank and Dumbarton districts. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about certain aspects of that proposal.
The company has, I understand, proposed that a large part of the Kilpatrick hills be developed to provide two hotels; golf courses and driving ranges; an equestrian centre with associated pony-trekking facilities; a dry ski


slope; and hill walking trails. An outline planning application was submitted to both Clydebank and Dumbarton district councils in November 1990.
I understand that 90 per cent. of the total 4,000-acre development area lies within Clydebank district and that this sector includes all the major construction proposals. With the agreement of Dumbarton district council, Clydebank disrict council has therefore taken the lead in dealing with the application. The council has told the developer that the application will not be considered until an environmental assessment of the proposals' impact on the area has been undertaken. I understand that the director of planning for Clydebank district council does not expect to be in a position to report to the council's planning committee before April at the earliest.
It is possible that the proposed development would be out of accord with both the structure and local plan policies. The Strathclyde structure plan key diagram shows that the southern part of the application site might form part of the Strathclyde green belt. Current approved structure plan policies presume against development within the green belt and any proposals are required to be justified against economic benefit, specific locational need, infrastructure implications and environmental impact criteria. The northern part of the site would appear to fall within an area defined as countryside around towns, which is governed by similar policies. The site as a whole forms part of the Loch Lomond and Kilpartrick hills regional scenic areas. Here structure plan policies presume against prominent or sporadic development which would have an adverse environmental impact. The site is also covered by green belt and environmental protection zone policies in the Clydebank district countryside local plan.
As the hon. Gentleman will have noted, there would be obvious implications for structure plan policies if this development were to proceed and it is likely that Strathclyde regional council will take a close interest in the application. As the regional planning authority for the area, it has the right to call in the application for its own determination, and it is possible that it will take that action if Clydebank district states that it is minded to grant planning permission. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, appreciate that at this stage there is no sign of what the district council's eventual decision will be, but it is clear that the benefits that the development might bring to the district will have to be weighed carefully against any adverse impact that it might have on the environment.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are two ways in which my right hon. Friend can become involved in planning applications such as this. Firstly, should the district council be minded to grant planning permission and should it consider that the development makes a significant departure from the approved structure plan, it will be required to refer the application to my right hon. Friend for consideration. At the same time, it must also refer the application to the regional council for its consideration. I cannot, of course, speculate at this stage as to whether either my right hon. Friend or Strathclyde regional council would thereafter call in the application for determination, but the opportunity would be there for those powers to be used.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend could become involved, should either Clydebank district council or Strathclyde regional council refuse to grant planning permission. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an applicant for planning permission has a statutory right of appeal to my right hon.

Friend against such a decision. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that because of the possibility of either referral of the application, or an appeal against refusal, I cannot comment in any way on the merits of the proposal or the applicants, their employees or their backers. I am, however, aware of the hon. Gentleman's grave concern about the matter and his recent request that my right hon. Friend investigate the company behind the proposed development. I believe that any such investigation would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to consider, but I shall look into this matter further and write to the hon. Gentleman shortly about the procedures for any such investigation.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the funding of the Scottish Development Agency, in particular the provision of funds which would enable it to carry out environmental improvements to brown-field sites. It is important to recognise that the economic development budget for Scottish Enterprise, which includes provision for environmental improvement works, has in fact increased. The budget set for environmental works reflects Scottish Enterprise's views on relative needs and priorities. It should also be borne in mind that Highlands and Islands Enterprise will, in future, carry out environmental works in its area which were previously undertaken by the Scottish Development Agency.

Mr. Worthington: It seems that, in recent years, the SDA's priorities on environmental work have changed and it is giving preference to work connected with job creation. In some ways, that makes sense. It will put money allocated to the environment into work leading directly to jobs. I can understand that focus, but other money must be made available because of the costs incurred when environmental work is not done to bring sites into housing operation. I hope that the Minister will consider that.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of those involved. Provision for environmental work has increased, which is important.
I shall take the opportunity to comment on our policy towards green belts. Since 1987 we have made it quite clear that we remain firmly committed to green belts and will continue to defend them against unsuitable development. It is particularly important to reaffirm that commitment at a time when Scottish green belts are coming under greater pressure for development than ever before.
The hallmarks of the Government's policy on green belts are, first, our strong commitment to maintaining the existence of effective green belts, and, secondly, our commitment to maintaining two policies that we have applied to green belts, which have been in existence for about 30 years. Although the policy has been restated and refined in that time, the original purposes have not changed. I am glad to have the opportunity to confirm that, not just in relation to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but throughout Scotland.
That pressure on the green belts is undoubtedly due to the growth in economic activity that the country as a whole has enjoyed in recent years. But while that growth is to be welcomed and provides people with the spending power to consider a wider choice of options for where they live and work, we must also ensure that any new development is channelled into the appropriate areas. We


therefore have to ensure that we integrate positive policies for providing jobs and houses in areas outwith green belts with positive policies for maintaining the integrity of the green belts, so that the green belt continues to fulfil the objectives for which it was created.
The Scottish Development——

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes past One o'clock.